Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

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 merge and redirect to Central Bucks School District. Very little to merge, actually. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamanend Middle School

Article is full of patent nonsense and reads like a hoax. I looked through almost all of the versions and there never has been a real, bona fide, Wiki-style article. The school is a real school and appears in a list as part of this school district. No sources, no encyclopedic information, mostly jr. high level OR. Renee (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is non-notable and fails all criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Mysdaao ^talk 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central Bucks School District as is the norm for most middle schools. --Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article in a primary source itself becuase it has been created by students of Tamanend Middle School. I can ensure you these facts are entirely true and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realdog44 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. An article cannot establish its own notability; reliable third-party sources are needed. Even if this article is notable, it would have to be heavily edited to remove the unencyclopaedic nonsense. -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that someone has removed the AfD tag from this article (since reinstated by me Msdaao(sp?)) to my mind doesn't augur well for it; if it's so notable, why is it necessary to (attempt to) suppress the deletion debate? -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (edited because of edit collision)[reply]

Redirect to Central Bucks School District. As Dhartung notes, middle schools are not inherently notable unless they have some special distinction, e.g., designated as a Blue Ribbon school per other middle school AFDs recently. Not only does this article fail to assert any notability, its only purpose seems to be a WP:SOAPBOX. JGHowes ^talk - 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Central Bucks School District unless some verifiable sources can be found to establish notability (Best I could get out of Google News was that the school was mentioned as receiving funding for renovations. Additional Comment - I have removed the patent nonsense from the article - and flagged the not so patent nonsense as requiring citations, in the slim case that the article is sufficiently improved to establish notability prior to close of debate -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district as usual. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:08, 3 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 and nobody can agree where to merge/redirect to. Any future possible merge/redirect is an editorial decision. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caravanim

WP:OR, WP:DICT, Israeli neologism. The word does not have a specific notable definition and is merely the common Hebrew term used in Israel for a wide variety of structures ranging from trailers and mobilehomes. Some other pre-fab buildings might be labled using the root 'caravan', though they aren't trailers. The article itself is OR and also has false claims. The 'references' are merely from poorly written Israeli sources. Shuki (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind if you delete this article. I would just like to know where I could include a mention of the Israeli use of trailers for classrooms, synagogues and community centers, which seems noteworthy to me. Should I include it under Mobile home, which already has a subsection on caravillas? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This google search reveals 65 hits: here Some of the web sites are in Hebrew and inaccessible to non-Jews like me but one web site confirms it is a trailer. The article has 2 reasonable references and 2 useful photos. If Israeli settlers use it, surely it merits a place on Wikipedia. It may have significant political influences too in the West Bank. This English Haaretz article talks about Israeli government restrictions on the use of this trailer in the West Bank: [1] Artene50 (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment to two previous edits: It's not noteworthy at all. It's a pre-fab or mobile structure. There's absolutely nothing special, unique, or distinct to mention. It's not a brand-name or a patented design either. Trailers are mentioned at 'Israeli settlement', maybe that could be expanded to explain why pre-fab homes are installed instead of bricks and mortar. Perhaps add something referenced at Prefabricated home, but otherwise, there is nothing spectacular at mentioning how pre-fab is used. --Shuki (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Provisional" keep As it stands, the article isn't warranted, since it basically describes Nitzan. However, I believe the topic has a potential for notability. For example, much can be said about the Caravanim sites set up during the 1990s to accommodate Olim from the former Soviet Union and from Ethiopia. I also recall reading about a book about a connection between construction methods in the Israeli settlements and the way the army operates there. -- Nudve (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Caravilla for now, the subject is somewhat notable. However, if no one can write about anything other than Nitzan in the article, it should be merged into mobile home (essentially, what Nudve said). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mobile home. There are lots of pre-fab buildings inthe world. Also, unlike Quonset hut this is not a specific type of building, it is merely a collective Hebrew term for pre-fab buildings. Elan26 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
I think the word you are looking for is Redirect. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:23, 6 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 23:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Breen

unnotable Jackal4 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Undecided about notability, but so far this fails WP:V. Possible hoax. Pburka (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Tragic but unverifiable bio of a AA-level minor league baseball player. I could not find sources to verify any of it. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy. I came up empty for anything. Even TheDeadballEra has nothing. Considering closing and deleting this already. Wizardman 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. No record of him as a MiLB player at www.baseball-reference.com or baseball cube; gnews doesn't come up with this person, nor does a gsearch.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - According to the Trenton Thunder article we have, the club was not a Yankees affiliate in 1991-92. Add the lack of sources and it smells like a hoax. Giants2008 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax Why do people do this??? If a minor league player died in the 1990's, I would likely have been aware of it, as I am a sabermetrician who has studied minor league baseball since the early 1980's. However, I have never heard of Dave Breen. Also, minor league players are not generally given nicknames like "The M.V.P.". The Yankees 15th Round pick in 1991 was Steven Munda, not Dave Breen. And yes, as Giants2008 says, the Yankees AA affiliate was Albany-Colonie, not Trenton. The author of the article has made no other Wikipedia contributions. Eauhomme (talk) 08:36, 1 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, no prejudice against creating a redirect. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Moulton

Procedural nomination. The article had been redirected to Southampton; other than that being the city where Mr Moulton is from, there seems no sensible reason for this. He is not even mentioned in the Southampton article! If the person is believed to be non-notable, then this should be discussed by the community. RFBailey (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well below WP:POLITICIAN. Local councillors are rarely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak Keep - The subject of article appears to be notable. He is referenced by reliable third party sources.See[2], :[3]and

[4]. I don't see a problem with WP:V or WP:NOTABLE. ~~I don't see why this is at AfD and I do not understand a procedural nomination?!~~ Nk.sheridan Talk 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed my opinion to weak keep after reading WP:POLITICIAN. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO in the absence of significant press coverage. I'm not finding any with Google or Google News. Deor (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline delete - This guy seems like he's right at the brink of notability. One or two more sources (which I can't find) would put him over the top. However, at the moment, I believe he does not meet WP:BIO. TN‑X-Man 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO requires sigificant coverage. Therefore, one or two more sources will never decide the notability of a person. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News Archive and NewsUK between them turn up three articles quoting him, but none saying anything about him. Not clearly more notable than any other UK councillor. EALacey (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, after reading the deletion guidelines I noted that a redirect is favoured over a deletion (because the information is kept and can be used should notability increase) but if there is a choice then I would rather have the article deleted as this councillor has done nothing of note yet. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 2 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 G7 I didn't realize I'd created the dab page myself. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (Note: I needed the page deleted so I could move Brand New Girlfriend (album) to Brand New Girlfriend.)[reply]

Brand New Girlfriend

No need to disambiguate between the album and the song since they're interconnected. Pointless dab. Suggest deleting this and moving the album to the Brand New Girlfriend designation Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is a bit unclear. But in any case, if Brand New Girlfriend is going to stay, or even stay as a redirect, this is the wrong place for the discussion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:31, 1 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teen King

Notability in question, since no sources claiming this information; Single also included to debate Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to verify the info contained here. Wait until it's actually out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Future album with no claim of meeting WP:MUSIC or WP:Notability. If it becomes notable, recreate then.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is totally unreferenced with no verifiable sources. There is no hint of WP:N either. Finally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Artene50 (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:SPBLU —Preceding comment was added at 21:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to give a reason why you think the article(s) should be kept? ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 03:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 03:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, unreleased and seems non-notable. Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL and possibly WP:MUSIC. The article can be recreated if and when there's an official release date from the record label etc. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 12:34, 3 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 as WP:DICDEF. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boychick

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this article is basically just a definition and etymology of the word "boychick". Some individual words have articles about them, such as Orange (word), but there's nothing notable to say about the word "boychick". AJD (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Permanent dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT. Searched Google Books and Google Scholar and couldn't find anything except passing uses and dictionary definitions, so I presume it's not notable as a sociological phenomena or whatever. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, which has an inadequate boychik entry. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I have reviewed the wiki standards and cleaned up this article to more than just a definition. In fact nobody seems to have a problem with boyo which is much much less an article. Boychick also has social noteriety. Agent204.15 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Boyo is a disambiguation page; it's not supposed to have content. And boychick still looks like just a definition to me. AJD (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, then explain why the article shenanigan which is another disambiguation term, is not being proposed for deletion?204.15.6.99 (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boyo is a place, and shenanigan refers to a notable TV show, album, etc. That's why they have pages. If boychick or boychik was the title of a notable book or something, it would have an article too. But it shouldn't have an article just for a definition. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point! Boychick is a culutural thing, not just a definition. I would have included another link but wiki has black listed it for some reason. It showed all kinds obects with the word boychick printed on them. Not only that, the term boychick is included on many movies , books, plays...ect.204.15.6.99 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find at least one reliable source that states that boychick/boychik is a cultural phenomenon and gives it significant coverage. See the notability guideline for details of the kind of evidence you need. You can't demonstrate notability of the concept by pointing out usage of the term because that is considered original research. You have to provide evidence that reliable sources that have described it as a phenomenon, and not just as a term. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if there is a specific book or something that has "boychick" in the title, and that book meets wikipedia's criteria for an article, then that book could have an article. But that article would have a different title to this (unless the title of the book is just "Boychick"), and doesn't affect the decision on whether to delete this article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:32, 6 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It Takes A Nation

This song was not released as a proper single. It was leaked to the Internet and shouln't be considered as a single, thus, should not have an article in Wikipedia, considering it's not notable since it won't peak in any music charts. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Do Ya Thang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Neither were charting singles and haven't been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leaked, yes. But the articles don't show any notability. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly redirect to It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back. Plausible search term for this notable album. Pburka (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. A leaked song which has not peaked on any music charts. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 2 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronii

The reliable sources on which a neutral, verifiable article could be based do not seem to exist. The only apparent sources are a Myspace page, an official website and this empty profile. None of these sources give any indication that the subject is likely to have received any additional coverage by reliable secondary sources Guest9999 (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources that varifies the info in the article. Fails notability perWP:N. -- RyRy5 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ronii should be gonii, per nom. Nothing much in the way of GHits. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SPAM and lack of WP:N This article is clearly written in such a way to promote Ronii's career. All the sources link to a web page on ronii with no independent references on him. Finally, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL Artene50 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:GOOGLE and possibly others. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 03:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 2 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. No evidence of non trivial coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJBooth.net

Fails WP:WEB. Only sources are either self-published or trivial blog mentions. Spellcast (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To quote BZisook, "They are one of the TOP 10 most visited Hip-Hop oriented sites on the net. Their reviews get published in the Google News feed too." I'd say that's notable. Also, everyone seems to have forgotten Wikipedia is not paper. Tom Danson (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is different from "popularity". Google news only returns results from the DJBooth site itself. Per WP:WEB, there needs to be reliable sources that discusses the site in detail. Wikipedia isn't paper, but that's not an excuse for non-notable sites to be kept. Spellcast (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This article surely meets standards. There is enough external links and references, and the website is one of the most visited. --LAA Fan 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give any in-depth coverage from reliable sources? Spellcast (talk) 05:25, 29 May 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 20:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was previously closed as "keep". It is unclosed and relisted in accordance with this DRV discussion. Sandstein 20:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No proof that it's one of the most popular sites. Also, popular ≠ notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I can't find any reliable third party sources which refer to this site. The only reference, that is not a blog, which I found is at a rappers news site. It may be covered by specialist hip hop print media e.g. The Source magazine but I don't have access to this. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of notability in Google, News, Books, Scholar. Just some passing mentions and interviews by them, nothing reliable specifically about the site. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution of notability to independent and credible sources. Fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 03:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 05:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Here is an example of a reliable source. Here is another reliable source. And finally, a mention in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm doubtful whether the first two are reliable sources, and they're definitely not significant discussions of DJBooth.net. They are short articles about artists, mentioning DJBooth.net. The third last is a reliable source, but again nowhere near significant coverage. Those links do not constitute evidence of notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also, please note that the website's creator, user:BZisook (link), has a conflict of interest. Spellcast (talk) 12:46, 5 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of farmers' markets in the United Kingdom

Unencyclopaedic list that will always be incomplete or out of date Ratarsed (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Ratarsed (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - discriminate, organised, sourced ... . I have notified contributing editors. TerriersFan (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The more I edit wikipedia, the more I believe that lists should be eradicated in preference for categories. Lists are almost always out of date. I do not see any value over a category. --Stewart^(talk) 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A category is for a collection of articles; since none of these markets has, or is likely to have, an article how is a category appropriate? TerriersFan (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This evening, the wikilinks for several markets have replaced those of the town associated with them. Additionally, if there is not an article for a Farmer's Market, the sub-section in the associated village/town article to its Farmer's market should the category piped to the particular sub-section. --Stewart^(talk) 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, the diff for today's edits is here and I'm not spotting the extra links. In any case the article sorts the markets by regions and references each one - added value to a category. TerriersFan (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Keep - Can't see that being incomplete is a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not complete either! All the farmers markets are notable (coverage in local papers for a start). Nk.sheridan Talk 21:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Objective, referenced, farmers markets don't move around much, so I can't imagine it will ever go out of date, even if it isn't complete at the moment, though it will be at some stage, as their are a finite amount of them.--Serviam (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just took a quick look at the references for these, and the first two are broken (I have a feeling the Ipswich one is no longer on that schedule, either) - scanning down the others, I notice a lot refer to the Big Barn website, which I also know is not always as up to date as it could be (or verifiable, as they don't cope if a market goes away, or any other other their points of interest go bust). If this list really was complete (and given that there's no assertion of any level of notability) then this would grow to be too large to be usable -- pretty much every market town now also has a farmers' market, in addition to most farm shops -- off the top of my head, I can think of at least four in a ten mile radius of myself, and that is only including those I've been to. -- if extrapolated, that's quite some directory we're building. -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a directory, not a list. See WP:NOT#DIR. There is no information provided about the markets to indicate their notability. The fact that hours are listed is a dead giveaway that it's a directory. And with the hours removed, there would be little of value left in the article. Pburka (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It does look like a directory after reading WP:NOT#DIR. If all of the farmers' markets are notable. As I'm sure the majority are (third party coverage in local papers, websites which list such markets, etc.). I'd say then that they could each have their own article and be included in a category of farmers' markets in the UK Nk.sheridan Talk 23:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jed keenan (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a directory, and of nonnotable topics too. I can't imagine that average individual markets would be notable: they're verifiable, but likely to be only passing notes about them, not the kind of sourcing that we require for notability. If this were considered notable, we likely could have a "List of churches in the United Kingdom" or "List of chemists [or whatever they call them; my American mind can't remember the equivalent term to drugstore] in the United Kingdom", because all would likely be verifiable in similar ways. One question, though: anyone have an idea what Jed's comment means? Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm trying to think of what a notable farmer's market would be and thus how many might be on a list without it just being a directory of external links. I suppose the oldest one and the largest one and such could be on there, but what else makes a farmer's market really notable except as a local attraction? No path to a list of notable farmer's markets. --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - It is the UK section of List of farmers' markets. This list was created to replace/stop production of lots of granular localised lists. If the information is out of date, it can be updated. MRSC • Talk 05:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I'd have known there was a List of farmers' markets sooner, I'd have included it in this nomination -- I notice on its talk page people suggesting it should be deleted... -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#DIR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:38, 3 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 as essay/original research. Have userfied text to originating author's user space to allow selective merger to articles identified below if desired. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Comparative Analysis of The Effectiveness of Three Solvency Management Models

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

It is an essay/original research by a user's own assertion [5], which is also a clear conflict of interest. Completely and unsalvageably unencylopedic. Disputed prod. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge to solvency. I have taken the liberty of removing the worst of the original research, leaving a decent summary of current literature. It would be helpful for the solvency page to have information on current metrics of solvency. Parts of this might also be able to be merged to working capital management. Mangostar (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to solvency. The article is a good one and all areas of conflict have been removed. I believe it is encyclopedic now. It is also recommended for merger with Bankruptcy and working capital management. bertrands 13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyi2001 (talk • contribs)
Change Article's Title to Metrics of Solvency to reflect the merger with solvency. The article is based on a new idea on solvency measurement and is considered a great contribution to knowledge in the field of financial economics. Bertrands 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyi2001 (talk • contribs)
Comment I appreciate the first two comments. They have been really helpful. I hope the changes made now reflect their aspirations. I particularly thank Mangostar for his cleanup exercise and his well thoughtout suggestions.--Bertrands 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyi2001 (talk • contribs)
Merge to solvency. With the original research removed, this seems to be a useful review of different ways solvency has been measured. EALacey (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to solvency or change title to Metrics of Solvency. The contents of the article are remarkable and highly inspiring. An intellectual breakthrough no doubt. --82.206.131.189 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to know how much of the article is still a blatant copy of [6], the original thesis by, I'm assuming, User:Enyi2001. Speaking of which, comments from Mangostar and EALacey aside, everything else is awfully suspicious (Enyi2001 signing as user Bertrands, which doesn't exist and the latest comment from 82.206.131.189, with no other contributions and an IP address from Enyi's university). Besides that, Wikipedia is not a literature review nor a place to promote/introduce new ideas/theories that have yet to gain general acceptance. Simply being useful and interesting should not be reasons for inclusion. This is an encyclopedia, not a textbook or journal. I'm sure some portions are notable and/or worth merging to other articles, but certainly not the section about the author's own work. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the comment of the last editor, however, it seems that he is trying to suggest that wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not welcome new knowledge. If that supposition is true then where is the encyclopedic quality? Besides, the theory is not new as it has already gained wide publicity in some journals and a book of reading of which references were included. I am not averse to the merging of any part or portion to any existing article as proposed but what is wrong about the author's own work? Please educate me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyi2001 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 5 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.

Lunarstudio

The result was Speedy deleted A7 Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:CORP. The only reference in the article is the company's listing on a professional organization's website that it belongs to and I could not find any reliable source coverage of the company. BlueAzure (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a non-notable company. Listing on a website is trivial. Speedy, so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 21:12, 31 May 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Office quest

Incomplete, unreleased, low budget film. As usual, contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable, third party sources.--Serviam (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave in place

Officequest currently involves at least five persons of general interest: actors listed on IMDB are:

Erica Williams, Leslie Fish, Rob Douglas, Amy Searcy, Seth Gandrud

Additionally, Leslie Fish is a world fameous Filk singer featured on wikipedia.

Officequest has been in production for some time and is relatively well know in the Phoenix area.

Production has been slowed due to funding issues and reshoots, but is indeed in production and filming is ongoing.

Vikingwizard

Vikingwizard (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically the comments above have damned the article to deletion IMO. It seems that the creator of the article is linked to the project. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. The company is NN, and only features one semi-notable person. We need some reliable sources not connected to the film (notable newspapers, notable magazines) and not just IMDB. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not leave in place per creator's comments. JuJube (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the movie lacks notability. The involvement of notable persons doesn't alter this fact. The movie could become notable when produced if it is covered by third party sources but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As per User:Vikingwizards comments production is not certain to be completed! Nk.sheridan Talk 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 2 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. enochlau (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosing out

Non notable neologism Nk.sheridan Talk 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contested prod. The only reference I can find is here which was created after the article. The article also appears to be a copyvio of the above link. Nk.sheridan Talk 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant when the reference was created, and the reference is in fact a copyright violation of us, seeing as they haven't cited us as the source like they have to do under GFDL. Anyway, that's urban dictionary, which allows anyone to add definitions. I think it's likely that this article and that definition were created by the same person, Delete as non-notable neologism.--Serviam (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly move to wiktionary?--Ondra2 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 22:06, 31 May 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 by Slp1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Killer

Poorly sourced future album. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly, I should have checked the history of this article. Third AfD!!! I'll tag it for speedy deletion, but leave this open until it's gone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:30, 31 May 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 Withdrawn Author requested article be deleted. (non-admin close) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National (India) Food Security

Unreferenced essay, probable copyvio (see WP:COPYVIO and WP:OR). Contested prod. Sigh. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mostly original research. The note at the end indicates that it is a report prepared for someone's boss. TN‑X-Man 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a personal essay for a company who are possibly using Wikipedia as a free web host. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, the author of this article agree that the article does not fulfil the requirements for inclusion. I think it was naive on my part to expect Wikipedia will accept all kinds of stuff. I agree that it be deleted. I have not blanked and expect one of the administrators shall delete it. Regrets for inconvenience caused. Jaspalkaler (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article states, "The author is a Special Secretary to Punjab Government. The views expressed here are his own", violating WP:NOR. Also see article creator's comment immediately above mine. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author requests deletion The author has requested deletion of the article, above. I have tagged it, but any passing admin can feel free to delete it (and close this afterwards). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 4 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.

Pine deep trilogy

The result was Nomination withdrawn upon clarification of notability. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable series of books, external links go to personal/vanity websites. TN‑X-Man 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After further research, it appears that the first book in the trilogy did win an award. However, reading WP:BK, I'm not sure how that applies to the rest of the trilogy. Any assistance is appreciated. TN‑X-Man 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Major award. If the first book of a trilogy (publ. in 2006) wins an award, it is common sense to conclude that the entire group (publ. in 2007 & 2008 respectively ) is notable. If they should happen to win individual awards, one could even justify three articles, though I'm not suggesting that. Considering the author has won previous prizes, and that the award was included in the first paragraph of even the original version when the afd was placed, along with a mention of a significant review, all we need to do is to check that the obvious COI does not excessively influence the article (at present, it seems to need some cutting & revision of language) . There should be no problem finding additional reviews, which of course should be added. DGG (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use some copyediting, but award is enough for notability of first novel of trilogy (and logically extends to notability of trilogy as a whole). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:56, 31 May 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 a7, group with no assertion of notability, article moved to nonsense title Mgj64k6e7ek6ku. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Fall of Chernobyl

Non-notable album, this an unreleased album by an "unknown artist". The only sources are a youtube video and a myspace page. Per this message on my talk page, the creator of the article is the "unknown artist". BlueAzure (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Album by a NN band who are clearly trying to use Wikipedia to promote their band. Album fails WP:MUSIC Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Happyme22 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC; artist doesn't have a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "I'm the one who's making the album" the contributor wrote on my talk page. Demonstrates obvious WP:COI. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:14, 31 May 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gex enemies

A fictional list of enemies that does not meet the wikipedia general notability guideline, since this list of enemies is not the topic of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unnecessary detail to a game that is not necessary for an encyclopedic overview of the game, as per WP:GAMETRIVIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not game guide, and enemies of a game are not notable like characters. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#INFO. Asserts no notability either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (organized and discriminate) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Consistent with What Wikipedia is. As far as any other shortcuts go, also keep per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as deleting the article prevents editors from improving and maintaing Wikipedia. Plenty of editors working on it (if they have not yet been notified of this AfD, then please be sure to do so per the AfD instructions: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Wikipedia Page History Statistics." Finally, trivia is encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Still haven't justified overriding the general notability guideline, which is central to wikipedia. Sometimes it's important to "ignore all rules", but then you'd have to make the case that this is an exception. We're not just going to discard such a central guideline on whim or fancy, let alone with some blanket justification. What makes this article so special? Randomran (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As there is no overriding reason to delete this article that benefits the project, the other central policies and guidelines I listed as keep reasons mean that the article should be kept. Keeping the article provides a coherent reference tool concerning a specific aspect of a notable franchise. It puts certain things in context, is clearly being worked on, and interests our readers. There is no advantage to removing this article whatsoever. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment WP:IINFO exists for a reason, largely to keep Wikipedia maintainable. Wikipedia may have a tremendous amount of disk space, however, we have a limited supply of editors. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have an ever growing supply of editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or Merge and Redirect This information pertains to a narrow topic, and at its current size is largely non-crucial to said topic. Some information is useful, such as enemies involved in the plot, however, much of this information is, for all purposes, nothing more than clutter. StrategyWiki exists for a reason, it should be transwiki'd there where it would fluorish. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its excessive detail for a non-notable subject, which would be far better suited to a quick summary in gameplay sections the main game articles. Transwiki it if there's anywhere suitable, but delete it from Wikipedia. -- Sabre (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gex enemies have not been the subject of independent coverage, it's also difficult to create this kind of list without avoiding original research.

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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice (Dutch band)

Non notable band DimaG (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although notability is asserted in the article, the information is not verifiable due to lack of reliable sources. Happyme22 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one EP and two demos. No studio albums released, no notability. --Bardin (talk) 07:59, 3 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 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed round ball

Appears to be a game someone made up one day. No assertion or evidence of notability, article barely makes sense. ~ mazca ^talk 17:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NONSENSE. Pburka (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Founded by a "Lead Dictator"? Pure nonsense/hoax. TN‑X-Man 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The professional league is made up of only two players? This is WP:NONSENSE. Happyme22 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't say it's truly a nonsense article - there's a followable narrative. But it is pretty clearly WP:NFT. Townlake (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears very much to be made up and I can say that with confidence as it seems none of the content can be verfied with any sources whatsoever after a guick google search which looked like this. AngelOfSadness talk 20:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Nonsense article, possibly a hoax. macy^talk 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This one day old article shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. It is just nonsensical. Artene50 (talk) 08:10, 1 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 23:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splash In Nash

This is a very small article, which is written quite like an advertisement. It tries to advertise three rides. And "The proud owners" is unnecessary. StewieGriffin! • Talk 16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I can't find any evidence that this business actually exists. Not even a phone number. Possibly a hoax. Pburka (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A four mile long water ride? Sheesh. Apparently nonsense/ hoax. TN‑X-Man 19:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as almost certain hoax, content looks extremely suspect and absolutely no Google hits outside of Wikipedia which would be very unusual for even a small local attraction. Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A waterpark with a four mile ride would probably be notable, but the article simply isn't verifiable. EALacey (talk) 15:55, 1 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, withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Out (restaurant)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable restaurant chain. No reliable sources to be seen when searching for "cook out" and various keywords ("cook out" + "Morris Reaves" turned up 8 pages). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Speedy keep Geniice found some sources for me. Thanks a lot, sometimes more than one pair of eyes searching for sources can help. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of reliable sources if you look for them. Seems to be notable in North Carolina. Pburka (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is substantial in nature. Most aren't even about the chain, and the rest are just about individual locations opening. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not exactly sure what makes a restaurant chain notable or encyclopedic in the first place, but I see no reason why Cookout should be excluded from the likes of Ruth's Chris Steak House or Taco Bell. Furthermore, I'm not sure what you expected to happen your search includes the common name for one of the most ubiquitous summer pastimes--jackass.--Apotheosis247 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even consider deleting this? It exists. The page has been written. Let it stay.

This definitely deserves the right to exist. It's a legitimate and rapidly expanding fast food chain with excellent value. TWW 4 Life!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.67.37 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you care that much about the deletion of information on the internet, maybe you need to get out of the house more often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.224.126 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant is popular all over North Carolina. Ask any college student in Raleigh, and they'll give you tons of reasons why cookout is notable. There is absolutely no conceivable reason as to why this article should be deleted. TWW 4 lyfe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.135.17 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional weak keep, not for the ridiculous reasons given by the IP above, but because some of the sources Pburka notes: some of them seem to be about the chain. I'm not about to pay for access to those articles, so my "keep" is conditional upon someone being able to get the sources and demonstrate notability for this chain. Until/unless we have someone with access to those pages, the article isn't verifiable, and therefore definitely isn't notable. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. I just don't see any reason why it should be deleted - it is an institution all over North Carolina. Granted, it is a regional chain (few outside of NC have ever even heard of the establishment) and receives little commercial exposure on the Internet (they don't even have a website) - but this hardly merits its deletion.65.190.135.17 (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about some sources? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add sources and keep The stuff from the Google News search looks substantial to me; cherry pick some good ones and add them, and WP:N will be cured. Townlake (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ghits attest that it is a notable chain-restaurant in the North Carolina region. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arrrrrgh... This is driving me nuts. There are clearly no reliable sources that give significant coverage to the chain. At least none that I see. And Google hits don't matter. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry buddy, just take a look at the first hit in the link provided by User:Pburka. It's a The Charlotte Observer article about the 44th restaurant that opened under the Cook Out name. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill with a granite maul. No sauces, not notable. Ziggy Saw dust 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sources exist.Genisock2 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate delete No sources, let alone reliable ones. On Google I can only find advert-like sites, and a couple such as this, but they don't show me anything notable about it. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:25, 1 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 all. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 European Football Championship - Bulgaria

Unnecessary duplication of info from UEFA Euro 2004, UEFA Euro 2004 qualifying and UEFA Euro 2004 squads. – Pee Jay 14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 14:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom.--these articles are redundant. JJL (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as duplicate info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom BanRay 17:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom ← chan dler 23:17, 4 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.

Actual Condition

The result was REDIRECT - I'm boldly closing this as I've already redirected the article and I can see no reason to go through the entire AFD procedure here. Any admin who disagrees is welcome to re-open this AFD. Exxolon (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this piece of music is notable. It's part of something notable, but I am not sure it requires its own page. Scintillating Applicant (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warehouse: Songs and Stories - an AFD on this is a waste of time and I'm doing it anyway. Exxolon (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE as failing to meet WP:BIO and insufficient sources. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bray (camera operator)

The reliable sources on which a verifiable encyclopaedia article could be built do not seem to exist. Right or wrongly camera operators generally do not receive that much coverage and this one does not appear to have received the awards or recognition to make him an exception. I am also nominating Simon Bray as there will be no need for a disambiguation page if one of the two entries is deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. Obviously an accomplished camera operator, but accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tough search since there is a horse trainer with the same name, but I could find no reliable sources that would establish notability.--Captain-tucker (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above I could find no sources that establish notability. RMHED (talk) 15:07, 6 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. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Golan and Molehead

Not sure if this band is notable. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 12:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure that this even a band anymore. Regardless, the article itself states that their one album performed poorly. Group does not meet WP:BAND. TN‑X-Man 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, only one released album and I could not find multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:00, 6 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 deletion G12. Marasmusine (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Sri Acmar

Apparently nonnotable school, written somewhat like an advertisement. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - part of a series of promotional articles created by this contributor, fails WP:N and WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the article as a blatant copyvio of http://www.acmar.com/edu. I frankly don't know how to close an AFD; would someone who knows leave a note on my talk page? Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 31 May 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Cities

No proof is provided that there is such a concept, let alone that it is notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, not notable, and possibly junk science if not a hoax. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The originator of the concept, Danny Bloom, has been spamming a huge range of newspaper comment pages, which complicates a search on the theory (at least he's using his own name). The most credible coverage I can find is a New York Times article, although there is a serious buzz in some of the more credible parts of the blogosphere. Still, until it gets some non-trivial coverage outside of this one-man campaign I don't think it meets WP:N. Debate (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, nothing! Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete at this time, with no prejudice for reinstatement if notability requirements are met later. A cursory search returned quite a bit of a buzz in blogland, but I couldn't find much significant coverage, save the one NYTimes piece mentioned above by Debate -- and that article does note that Mr. Bloom is on a "one man campaign". This article should wait until coverage is more significant. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Speedy delete as clear copyright violation of this blog site: [7] The writer has copied and pasted large parts of this blog discussion to form this article. Secondly, a blog is not a WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 08:03, 1 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Teresa (fictional city)

non notable fictional city, pure trivia SuperSuperBoi (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This fictional location is the setting for most of Sue Grafton's best-selling "Alphabet" mysteries, has appeared in other works of fiction, has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources with articles focused on "Santa Teresa" as a fictional location (some of which are already cited in this article!), and this article can be significantly expanded from both primary and secondary sources. - Dravecky (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Dravecky. The fact that a large number of Sue Grafton's works involve the location is more than sufficient to establish notability. The fact that it has been used by multiple, successful, authors makes it significantly more so. Debate (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used by multiple authors, setting of best selling series. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Dravecky said. It seems to assert notability if its the setting of best-selling books. --JamieS93 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as I am concerned about the element of synthesis of sources for potentially loosely-connected topics. Is this the "same" Santa Teresa in both detective series? (In the same way that Gotham City is the same when Superman visits it, or Metropolis for Batman?) Or are they merely two different cities with the same name? Is there a reliable source which describes them as the same, or one as a deliberate homage to the other? Otherwise I'm afraid I'm unconvinced by the similarity. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get several credible sources on the first page of only a quick google: [8], [9], [10] and [11]. Debate (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added one of those to close the missing link. At this time I jsut feel this is no more than a listing, with no substantial coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is substantial in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, including among many others a cited Los Angeles Times article wholly about the fictional Santa Teresa. - Dravecky (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one has suitable secondary reliable sources, which should be enough to convince even those who dont think such topics notable for fiction. 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 2 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 under both G11 and A7 (bio). Rudget (Help?) 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shakri bin Abdul Razak

It is trying to promote a company. I tried running on google but nothing came up. Also there is no specific subject that make this page notable. Hellboy2hell (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no notability apparent, and article reads somewhat like an advertisement or résumé for him. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong KEEP. Very notable person in the company. PNSB Acmar (PNSB Acmar)

Speedy delete under criteria G11. Marasmusine (talk) 12:21, 31 May 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.

Cognac nepolian

The result was Article has been speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 19:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. It is similar to a chatroom. Hellboy2hell (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an article, just a question. Anonymous101 (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a simple question, should never have had an article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not an article. It's a joke! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A3 chat-like comments. Townlake (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A3 Total content is "Is cognac good during pregnancy during the 7th month of pregnancy? Please advice & also send me the relavent details too. Thank You, John Fernandes" (the obvious answer to said question is "absolutely not"). Wikipedia is not a BBS. Please look elsewhere. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I answered the article creator on his talk page (referring him to Fetal alcohol syndrome for details), advised him to use the Wikipedia:Reference desk for other questions, and tagged the article for speedy deletion for lack of content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldogs off-field indiscretions

Almost all the incidents listed are reasonably minor, with the exception of the 2004 gang rape allegations, which of course received massive media coverage and already have their own article. A couple of them might warrant a mention in Canterbury Bulldogs History, in the context of a discussion of occasional accusations of poor behaviour by Bulldogs players, but I don't see that there's a need for a separate article collating barely a dozen incidents over a decade. Nasica (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of references and notability of the events. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I personally think the whole thing is massively over-played by the media, the issue remains an ongoing theme in Australian newspapers and football coverage because it is alleged that there is a pattern of behaviour, not simply one incident. The material is too detailed to sit comfortably within the main team article and therefore is best left in this one for those genuinely interested in the gory details. Debate (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I have no opinion on keep or delete, but if it is kept it needs to be renamed to Canterbury Bulldogs off-field indiscretions as the Western Bulldogs, South Fremantle Bulldogs and the four legged canine varieties of bulldogs shouldn't be tarred with the same brush. The-Pope (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no opinion but it should be renamed to Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club off-field indiscretions to match the main article name and at least say what sport is involved. --Bduke (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best merge with Bulldogs History (which needs to be renamed per the MOS). This massively violates WP:UNDUE. --Dhartung | Talk 17:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Dhartung and per WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Dhartung above. I agree with the assessment of WP:UNDUE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Trim and Merge into Canterbury Bulldogs History.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no problem with move/delete/merge of the above article but I do take issue with the random renaming of the main and history article. The official title of the club is the Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club. It is a rugby league club, not a union club. Nor is the club the 'Canterbury Bulldogs', simply the Bulldogs. Canterbury was dropped from the name in 1997. •Florrie•leave a note• 07:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the main article to Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club. I was unable to revert the History page from Canterbury Bulldogs History so renamed it in line with the main article. It is now Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club history and, I think, I have managed the double-redirects. If you have any other naming concerns, please use a {{move}} template on the talk page of the article and discuss the matter there. The use of "Canterbury" in the team name is a sensitive issue (for and against) for many Bulldogs fans. Cheers. •Florrie•leave a note• 10:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per User:Dhartung. I found no reporting that noted these incidents as a pattern of behaviour related to this particular club. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNDUE. I'd also add that articles of this nature tend to serve primarily as troll magnets, and don't lend themselves to encyclopaedic content or neutral point of view. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:49, 2 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 move to Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles, California in The Bold and the Beautiful

non notable subject, los angeles is not a fictional city, the los angeles article already covers the scope of this article, this article is nothing but useless trivia and original research, poorly sources, no where near notability, please delete it quickly! SuperSuperBoi (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful. --Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nom seems to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the article. There's no contextually-appropriate reason given for a delete. Townlake (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful is a good idea. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful per Dhartung and Phlegm Rooster.— Ѕandahl 19:27, 6 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. Insufficient independent sources cited to establish notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M Ted Morter, Jr

I do not think the article establishes sufficient notability; it cites no independent references (just articles written by Mr. Morter, and other chiropractics-related pages), and it is written in a promotional style. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete-agree with nominator —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSuperBoi (talk • contribs) 11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to meet the first two items of WP:CREATIVE. The fact that he is mentioned on other chiropractics-related pages is an argument for notability per WP:CREATIVE bullet 1, not lack of notability, as it shows that his views aren't fringe theories but have some currency with his peers (ie people who are qualified to tell if he's a quack or not). Google books returns several references where he is not just the author, but cited by peers as well [12]. He also meets WP:CREATIVE bullet 2 as the inventor of the "Bio Energetic Synchronization Technique", which may be dubious [13], but nonetheless seems to be in reasonably wide use amongst chiropractors and is therefore noteworthy. Debate (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Canyon

Doesn't meet guidelines for notability. This would be a good article for a Penn State wiki or something along that line. Mithunc (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable enough with the one reference, lots of people go to that school and know about this, it might me mentioned in a publication and someone might wanna look it up and what better place to inform yourself than wikipedia for the sum of all human knowledge.SuperSuperBoi (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to State College, Pennsylvania as it doesn't merit a standalone article under Wikipedia:Notability (streets and roads) but would enhance the parent city article in an edited form. - Dravecky (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up The once cited reference does not even glancingly mention the term "Beaver Canyon" so the article is in fact essentially unreferenced. - Dravecky (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None notable section of a street that is near a school. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search does turn up some sources, but they mostly relate to the misbehavior of students at the location and are from the college and local newspapers. I'm not seeing anything that would establish wider notability. I suppose a mention could be included in State College, Pennsylvania, but I don't know where—this hardly seems a "point of interest." Deor (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there appears to be a possibly notable Beaver Canyon in Utah, and it would be nice if the title were available should anyone decide to write an article on it. Deor (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm an alumni and I don't recall ever hearing the term before. Sources seem thin on the ground. At best it's a non-notable regional colloquialism. Debate (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're an alumni? So there are two of you? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources exist for this place. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN local WP:NEO, unreferenced. --Dhartung | Talk 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 2 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. Rudget (Help?) 12:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 09

The only source is a press release, itself not cited satisfactorily. Prod/prod2 removed by anon user without comment. Propose deletion on grounds of WP:V, WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Marasmusine (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's been deleted twice, although, the game will be released within the next couple of months so a page should exist but then WP:NOTCRYSTAL. But seeing as there's no sources, I'll vote delete. ——Ryan | t • c 16:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the reasons listed above, the article is unsourced, and reads more like a press release. I don't know who David Rutter is, and, I'm sure, neither do most other readers. 69.109.220.46 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Hadrianos1990 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I get the feeling that more information on this is coming soon, but so far there is no reliable information on it. Not even the faintest attempt to assert notability. Better to create the article when there's actual verifiable information. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a bit early to be creating an article for this game because at present, it's just a stub and violates policies such as WP:CRYSTAL. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not announced yet. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relist AFD tag ahs not been on article for three days after an anon removed it. I don't see how this could therefore be interpretted as a fair discussion. 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Green (talk • contribs)
- We can simply leave the AfD open longer. --EEMIV (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced violation of WP:CRYSTAL. There doesn't seem to be much, if any, information available from reliable sources right now. ~ mazca ^talk 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randomran – no potential for expansion at this time, given lack of sources. haz (talk) 11:29, 31 May 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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OGOGO

Contested Prod - Notability in question Agathoclea (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per point #5 of WP:MUSIC - have released 2 or more albums on indie labels - Innova Records and III Records. Needs expansion to include a discography though. Lugnuts (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I've cleaned the article up a little - it seems from a quick look around that this artist might just about fulfil WP:MUSIC #5 as Lugnuts says, but I'm having trouble finding much meaningful coverage of them anywhere to reference the article. ~ mazca ^talk 10:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C5. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this ensemble is the driving force of West Coast Avant-Garde Experimental music. Armatist (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 2 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 as failing WP:PORNBIO. No notability asserted or sources given. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique dos Santos

Non-notable per WP:PORNBIO. Google search reveals no reliable sources that satisfies the general criteria of WP:BIO. Notability stamp since March. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki PornBio..... "Big-breast pornography, also called big-boob or big-bust pornography features women with large breasts. Some viewers prefer performers with breast implants, others prefer women who have naturally large breasts."

I don't know how this would not cover her.... She was probably one of the most popular in Europe at a time, and made big in roads in the US... Msjayhawk (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. She's clearly notable in the genre, so it's hard to see how she could be deleted. That is, if it really turns out to be the case that sources can't be found, then I suppose a delete is the only way to go. But it seems obvious to me that her notability is not in question; it's just a matter that people haven't gotten around to putting reliable resources to that effect on her page. Xihr (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am questioning her notability. How is it obvious? Because she's prolific? Because she's appeared in so and so magazines? Vinh1313 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Msjayhawk. If you're claiming that she satisfies "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.", please explain what makes her contributions unique to big bust pornography and if the contention can be cited to a reliable source. That is if she is "one of the most popular in Europe", there is a reliable source stating that rather than rely on personal knowledge as it could be seen as puffery. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- She has been in Score, Color Climax, Blue Climax, Rodox, Busen, etc.

Notable: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."

Pornographic actors

Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media (of the genre).

Msjayhawk (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ask again, what are the unique contributions she made to big bust pornography and are there reliable sources to verify them? Further, you are misconstruing the third criteria. There is no implied "of the genre". Notable mainstream media means notable non-pornographic media... like a television show or a movie. There are no reliable sources to verify either criteria because Dos Santos satisfies neither criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify about the unique contributions question: What makes appearing Score, Color Climax, etc so unique compared to any other model of the genre? Vinh1313 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're claiming that she has a large fan base or has a significant cult following, you must have reliable sources that states she has a large fan base or cult following. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:37, 4 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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socket 3

unreferences article on article that does not assert notability SuperSuperBoi (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Well the socket does exists and is notable but I have to say that the other content is unrefrenced may not be correct. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I actually don't understand a word in the article, as it's far too technical for me, but a quick gsearch returned quite a few hits and some good info. I think it qualifies under specialised encyclopedic content in any case, being a necessary Intel component to make these fancy typewriters work. It's certainly better off than Socket 2. I thought it also might be a candidate to merge with CPU socket, but looking at that page there is no way all of the sockets would fit in there. I'd tag it with a needs references and "expand" template and move on. --Stomme (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is a notable piece of computer technology, is well covered in reliable sources both secondary and primary, and article does assert notability. Article needs better referencing but that's best handled with tagging, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incoherent nomination aside, the socket exists and is notable. The article could be better written and referenced, but it'd save everyone a lot of time if the effort invested in nominating was invested in improving instead. General articles are not required to assert notability (although obviously they must still be notable). Asserting notability is a concept limited to WP:Bio. Debate (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky and Debate. Hard to imagine why this is less notable than Socket 1, Socket 2, Socket 5, Socket 7 etc..., and would make the series incomplete if deleted. Granted the article needs work, that's no reason to delete. Keyed In (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep What was the reason for nomination? M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep notable computer technology, looks like this is ripe for WP:SNOW. nneonneo ^talk 04:17, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse drive

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is thus trivia and synthesis of trivia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination provides no evidence to support its unlikely claim that this topic is not notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete for gods sake we don't need specialized articles on fictional methods of transportation from TV shows. transwiki this to the star trek wiki and give it a rest nerds.SuperSuperBoi (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your fervent distaste for nerds is not a speedy deletion criteria. JuJube (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Based on existing references [14]. Topic is notable. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete looks like crap compared to the rest of the Star Trek articles; merge it in with one of them. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or clean it up, is perhaps what I meant. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Firefly's search only lists 12 hits for this article. If it was notable, you would expect a lot more hits than this. Moreover, about 2 or 3 of the hits deal with psychiatry or bipolar disorder, not really Star Trek. Artene50 (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability only requires two sources. But here's a more complete list of links showing hundreds and thousands of sources of various types: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per The Physics of Star Trek. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Judge. Mere trivia that does not support an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) 22:34, 2 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 G11. non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 07:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zmail

un-encylopedic how-to article, also spammy, verging on G11 ukexpat (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 Advertisement/how-to. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:27, 31 May 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 Withdrawn otherwise speedy keep. As often noted below, notability does not have an expiry date - Peripitus (Talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Alberto Souza dos Santos

Retired non-notable professional soccer player. Given his retired athlete status this article is not protected by WP:ATHLETE because from the moment of his retirement his no longer an athlete or a competitor.

Therefore this article must comply with the more general WP:BIO criteria but it fails at that. Delete per WP:BIO ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's rationale is wrong, notability does not expire. But I won't say keep unless I see some references added to the article. Punkmorten (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese version of the article seems to have some references here, not sure how good they are. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as professional footballers are (even by the nominator) undisputably notable, and because (as noted by Punkmorten) notability doesn't expire. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability is not temporary, Portuguese version of article is more substantial and better referenced so expansion is clearly possible. - Dravecky (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:ATHLETE: Competitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league. Has the subject done that? Yes, thus he satisfies the notability criterion. Notability is not temporary and articles are not removed just because the subject is no longer involved in what made them notable. WilliamH (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere is a big discussion about WP:ATHLETE at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adalberto_Hilário_Ferreira_Neto.

The Brazilian Project has over 2,000 articles related to soccer players, the English Project over 6,000. Most these articles are stub with no information about players nobody hears about worse as English peasant points out that the WP:ATHLETE guideline was invented, it was not a product of careful debate.

By creating the concept of retired athletes we could please both NFL, FA Cup, NBA and Copa do Brasil fans and still satisfy WP:BIO in the long term.

WP:ATHLETE is a crazy, invented, STUB creating guideline that only serves to satisfy sports fans and is in full contradiction of WP:BIO.

Don't believe me? Check [Category:Brazilian_footballers], most of the articles were created for new players, the articles are stubs, have no information only player transfers and the players are not notable per WP:BIO.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever the criteria for athletes are or should be, they should apply equally to active players and to those retired (to the extent doing so is meaningful). I don't think we need separate criteria for retired athletes to distinguish them from active athletes. If some editors want to make the criteria more restrictive, then that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as to Santos himself, because apparently he played about 9 years in the J. League, Japan's highest professional soccer league. I doubt we would ever impose criteria so restrictive as to exclude someone who played 9 years in a country's top-level professional league. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what the guy played 9 years? No reliable sources have ever writtten something about that player, so under the WP:BIO criteria he has no notability. WP:ATHLETE is the only thing keeping this STUB article up, even though he is no longer an athlete.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it implausible that "no reliable sources" have ever written about Santos. It seems more likely that such sources exist, but most of them are in Japanese and thus inaccessible to me, and that many of the non-Japanese sources are in Portuguese rather than English. I disagree with your implication that retired athletes cannot or should not qualify under WP:ATHLETE. The guideline refers to "[c]ompetitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league ...." The use of the words "have competed" includes both active and retired athletes. No reason has been given as to why we ought to impose a different standard for retired players compared to active players -- just that he is not an athlete anymore. But this encyclopedia is supposed to include historical information, not just a record of people who are active in their careers right now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Retired notable players remain notable in all sports, just as people do in other subjects once they have been notable. DGG (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was not trying to create the concept of temporary notability', this was trying to create a compromise between the overly protective and loose WP:ATHLETE and the more restrictive WP:BIO, but nobody liked it. So that unsourcced stub article will remain.

I withdraw the nomination.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not an important policy, and here it has been mis-interpreted by the nominator. We do not delete articles just because they are stubs. Catchpole (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"notability is not an important policy"??!! This was great.

BTW I conceded and withdrew the nomination.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:03, 1 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Shiu

Contested CSD. Notability not asserted, so I've brought it here to see if he is actually notable. Article's claims-to-fame are being a music lecturer, and an author of 7 books. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to reliable sources. I suppose the vague claims in the article put it beyond speedy. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable sources. If Jimmy Shiu has written 8 books, why wasn't a reference given for any of them. Article looks like a WP:BIO of an unnotable person. Artene50 (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 2 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. Seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Malinaccier (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Nickatina

AfDs for this article:

Still fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable underground rapper. Last AFD was "speedy delete". Minor local coverage from "SF Weekly" and "Metroactive", not a reliable source -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. I defend my decision under criterion #1 of the WP:MUSIC page that states that the musician must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". SF Weekly and Metro Silicon Valley do qualify as reliable sources because they both contain extensive editorial overview boards and are not self-published. As far as the depth of coverage goes, Nickatina was given a full article about him on SF Weekly back in 2003, and there are also some published reviews in SF Weekly and Metro Silicon Valley about a few of his albums. I think those sources should be enough to qualify as "multiple" works. What makes those local publications un-reliable though? I provided links to the Nickatina sources to the user who "salted" the Nickatina titled, User:David Eppstein, and he unsalted in approval.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep The sources in the article seem to meet WP:RS, such as the SF Weekly link and the All Music Guide profile (whose link I fixed). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AMG also reviewed one of the albums, as seen here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:MUSIC says it's notable if it has been covered in non-trivial third-party reliable sources, which this article has. Soxred 93 04:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage in SF Weekly and Metro appears to pass WP:MUSIC#1. The version I speedy deleted was much more minimal. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient media coverage to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Ford MF (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if they aren't necessarily the largest of publications, those two definitely appear to be non-trivial sources independent of the subject, hence satisfying WP:MUSIC.~ mazca ^talk 10:05, 31 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Smith (Locksley Guard)

The article is for a fictional character that is seemingly not sourced from anywhere mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet WP:FICT, written like a fansite besides. TN‑X-Man 19:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and WP:V. Happyme22 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By the article's own admission, this is a fanfic character and thus not notable. Edward321 (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay! Hamlet is a fictional character and has space here and do not start me on religion! William Smith may well one day become immortalised in literatureand deserves to be so surely an early and visible copyright and entry is a good thing! Besides the main protagonists always have their own page (Robin Hood for example) William Smith is stands for the never named henchmen who seem to exist for the "good guy" to run through! Eiskitten (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — Eiskitten (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, since one successful act does not make a label notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country Thunder Records

Doesn't seem to be a notable label. Only notable act is Heartland; the only other acts on this label aren't notable enough for their own pages. The refs are either primary, trivial, or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment any thoughts on these sources? I'm a country fan, but don't know enough about indie labels to determine what's enough to make them notable _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All are trivial mentions. The last one is more relevant to Heartland than to Heartland's label (even tho' Heartland did chart "Once a Woman Gets a Hold of Your Heart" on Country Thunder). I should note that Veronica Ballestrini is a red link because her page got AfD'ed about a month ago. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see what. I just wasn't entirely sure whether labels had to pass WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP or some other criteria altogether in terms of standards for music labels. I probably couldn't name more than a handful myself so notability is harder to gauge. I agree that they don't seem to meet WP:CORP and ghits just confirm its existence. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be notable. The label can claim a hit (with Heartland), and has a notable artist. Izzy007 Talk 01:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland's hit on the label was a #53. They had their #1 when they were on Lofton Creek. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RED Distribution. I don't think this label merit a standalone until sources exist to verify notability. WP:MUSIC identifies "one of the more important indie labels" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." This label is a year old and evidently has one notable band in its roster. The fact that the artist was already notable when it came to Heartland is a point in their favor in my book, and one of the reasons why I believe the redirect may be appropriate, as it is a plausible search term for that fact. But I don't think there's sufficient notability established for this label in the absence of other notable acts or widespread press. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TenPoundHammer is correct the sources are "trivial, or unreliable" and they don't talk about the company but simply mention it, I mean it's clear that the company is not the subject of the sources. Delete per WP:CORP.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS. Non-notable...articles should not rely on "inherited" notability, i.e. one of the bands they have happens to be notable. WP:MUSIC says a band is notable with 2+ albums with a major label, not a label is notable by having signed a notable band. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 20:37, 31 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Collection

Consortium of travel companies. Reads like an advert. Author's name suggests COI. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two sources are the official website and a blog hosted by the official website. I wish them all the best as a company, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be any third party references to their activities. For now it's an advertisement as far as I'm concerned. --Stomme (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G11 (reads like an advertisement). Created by single purpose account and no assertion of notability in article, nor on multiple news searches. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 5 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 23:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Fruit

Unnotable fictional fruit item from the manga and anime series One Piece. Completely fails WP:FICT. This is a failed PRODs that was deprodded by an IP with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is an even more detailed list of the same fictional fruit that also fails WP:FICT, is unnotable, and was deprodded by the same IP:

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Overly detailed, in-universe, non-notable... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - immense amount of in-universe cruft, failing WP:WAF. Asserts no notability otherwise to meet WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and merge any useful information in One Piece. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Worth a mention in the One Piece article. If anything, it might need to be Cursed Fruit (currently a redirect) since that is the verifiable name given in the English dub; otherwise it could be construed as WP:OR in terms of naming and translation choice. --Stomme (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and move to close discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSuperBoi (talk • contribs) 11:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as the individual who originally brought List of Devil Fruits to Collectonian's attention. —Dino guy 1000 15:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above reasonings. Greg Jones II 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an expanded explanation of why pages fail WP:FICT be provided for a notable object in a notable anime. The object itself maybe unnotable outside readers of the source manga but so is Jutsu (Naruto), List of Omnitrix aliens, and Magic in Harry Potter unnotable outside communities familiar with their respected sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.135 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being "notable" within the series does not mean that it is really notable. The series notability is not inherited by its individual fictional elements. To pass WP:FICT, the specific element must have received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. There is no such coverage for the topic of One Piece's "Devil Fruit." For the three you listed, notice they are all tagged for issues (and I added a notability tag to the HP and alien list ones). Jutsu, I believe, is slated for merging or to be overhauled in the on-going Naruto clean up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this also apply to Iron Man's armor, Zanpakutō, Orc (Middle-earth), Jedi, Kryptonite and Saiyan?203.177.74.135 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to ALL fictional articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Damn, all reasons have already been stated by other editors. No notability outside the context of the series. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from reasons being repearedly stated, how shall the information be handeled should it be deleted. Will it be merged onto the One Piece main article? The topic in discusssion is kinda a part of the series as Force (Star Wars) is a part of Star Wars. Aren't separate pages required if the scope of a subject is too big for a single article? What is a reliable source that can be used for a fictional object? Does the other language pages count as notability? Is deletion the only solution? Why are Iron Man's armor, Shinigami (Death Note), and Zanpakutō not also up for deletion, they have no notability outside their series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.173.230 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the consensus is complete deletion. Any necessity for mentioning it in the other One Piece articles are already there. As for the rest, if they don't meet notability, go registered and nominate them. We can't get to every last one at the same time, we take them as we can. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of fruits can always be tranwikied to a wiki specialized on that stuff, of course. As for those articles, feel free to nominate for deletion. After all, bigger sacred cows have fallen, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darth_Vader's_helmet for an example --Enric Naval (talk) 06:59, 1 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carousel Theatre

Previously {{prod}}'ed,. then recreated, speedy deleted, and challenged. Article is unreferenced and does not assert notability. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any assertation of notability or any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jessie Richardson Theatre Awards Society is indeed a reliable source. Please refer to their website. You can also google them. They recognize outstanding work in Vancouver Professional Theatre. In terms of notability, please try googling Carousel Theatre. The company has been producing professional theatre for young audiences in Vancouver Canada since 1974 and has the privilege of impacting the lives of more than 75 000 young people each year. Carole Higgins (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several more references to improve the entry.Carole Higgins (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the creator wanted to 'keep' the article so I did some layout on her comments here.Gillyweed (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is suitably well referenced now. The AfD process has led to the article being improved. Article now asserts notability. Gillyweed (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have some decent references and the theatre has been around for a while. I did a few quick searches on it and some of the names given and all were adequate enough to play a supporting role in keeping this article. --Stomme (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are mainly either non-reliable or trivial. They just mention things that played here, and are more about the shows than the theater. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note if the article becomes referenced and asserts notability, I have no objection to it being kept, have suggested to the creator that if it is not up to par then having it moved to a user sandbox would be OK as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the provided sources are either not independent or trivial in nature (event listings). These are not "decent references", unfortunately. We need reliable sources discussing the topic with some significance, not just proof that it has held events (we do believe it's real). --Dhartung | Talk 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you clarify what you mean by trivial and not independent? None of the provided sources are simply event listings. The Vancouver Sun, Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia, IMDB and Canada Council are reliable sources. Could you be specific as to which sources you consider to be unreliable?Carole Higgins (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Certainly the Sun and Encyclopedia are reliable sources, but what the information they and IMDB give is basically trivial event data -- somebody acted here, this production was mounted here. There is no source that is, for example, a profile of the Carousel Theatre as an institution -- its founding, its history, its influence. At most there is the Jessie Award (which is sponsored by the Canada Council, so one award, not two). But this is an award explicitly for Vancouver theatre, rather a small pond to be the best children's theatre in for one year. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThank you for clarifying. Several additional references have now been added, three of which speak to Carousel Theatre's influence and history. Carole Higgins (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not accept the the awards for a local theater prize is notable. Vancouver is not London or NY--there is no significance beyond the region. The Canada Council prize is also specialized, for a children's theater. if we get as specialized & local as these, we can find awards for almost anything. DGG (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - arguing that "there is no significance beyond the region" means that you need to delete every tin-pot little sporting team that appears on WP. And claiming awards that are only given in New York or London are notable is somewhat geographically arrogant. This theatre may be vastly better than anything in London or New York but we don't know, because it's not in London or New York?!? Is this the systemic bias in WP that we are trying to get rid of? Gillyweed (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it has no relationship to quality. I've seen very good theater elsewhere, and rather poor theater in both. It has to do with the influence which they hold over the genre. DGG (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You mention the influence that the theatre company has in its genre. Wikipedia recognizes children's theatre as its own genre, just as musical theatre, comedy and drama are genres. Carousel Theatre was recognized by the Canada Council (a national body) through their TYA Award as leader in the genre. This is a notable achievement. More references have been added to further improve the article.Carole Higgins (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or am I missing something here. Certainly the article as nominated for AfD asserted no notability but I can see lots online. I can see numerous reviews on reviewvancouver.com [15] [16], eight on vancouverplays (reviews by alleged Professor of English Jerry Wasserman) [17] and others. There appear to be a number of useful news articles just through google searching, notable enough to be listed in guide books (Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler, 2007). Noted in Canada on Stage York University, 1982 as "One undeniable bright spot in Vancouver theatre during the season was the work turned in by Carousel Theatre and Green Thumb, the city's two professional ..." . Noted in "The Canadian encyclopedia", 1988 - "The Oxford Companion to Canadian Theatre", 1989 and so on. All up there is clearly enough material from reliable sources to write an informative and verifyable article - Peripitus (Talk) 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well-sourced (I've seen articles ten or twenty times as long as this which didn't have half as many references) and contains numerous claims of notability: first Canadian theatre company to offer sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired, association with Mavor Moore, awards, etc. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carousel Theatre is a well-established and highly popular travelling theatre company serving communities in the Interior of BC for decades; easily one of BC's better-known theatrical companies/arts institutions.Skookum1 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting it has various notable alumni actors, not sure who at the moment, but I know it's the case.Skookum1 (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. Well referenced, coverage in a local daily, it merits inclusion. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable local theatre company. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:notability, has WP:RS. Still needs some improvement, but that isn't a reason to delete. DigitalC (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's lengthy listing of references shows notability is not an issue.Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Richardson

Non-notable person, does not meet WP:BIO or WikiPoker Project's criteria for a bio article. No independant coverage of the person. 2005 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News search reveals no independent coverage. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable player. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, as there is not any evidence of publication is third party, independent sources. Happyme22 (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 2 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 per the comments below and G11. Notability not established. Rudget (Help?) 12:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EasyLearning

WP:NN non-profit company. Yes, it has some business dealings with an arm of the UN, but no significant coverage found. Fails WP:Corp. Failed {{prod}} Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. I can't find any independent, reliable sources, so I'll leave it up to the authors to disprove me if they want to keep it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's an initiative, not a company. I added sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtm1969 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Weak sources added (except for the G&M which might be strong - can't tell), but WP:Notability still not demonstrated. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other sources added to show how widespread the program is. I will add quote from the G&M article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.158.84 (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:' Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:03, 31 May 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. List topic is notable, and articles cannot be deleted based on quality. Malinaccier (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mental illness in fiction

Another incomplete, randomly gathered and subjective list Ecoleetage (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 01:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I have several books on mentall illness in the movies which I have added notes to entries on several specific mental illnesses. Notable topic. Agree that article needs sourcing and cleaning up, then again article quality is no reason for deletion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see what's so vague about it. I just hope it stays focused on fictional works where the illness is the focus of the story, and doesn't become another dump for Simpsons/Family Guy gags. WillOakland (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a stub, but the subject itself is notable. WikiProject:Popular Culture is developing quickly, and some members from there can probably give it some attention. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence is provided that the list cannot be improved. I shall add another blue link to demonstrate that it can. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per NickPenguin ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melhores do Mundo

Notability of these obscure Brazilian comic book characters is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am brazilian and the this comic book is not notable in my country. All resources are only blogs? Sounds like auto-promotion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Anonymous101 (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. McIntosh Memorial Leadership Award

Non-notable scholarship program, strictly of limited local interest; the article reads like an advertisement Ecoleetage (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mention at W. S. McIntosh is sufficient as is. Redirect optional, but probably not needed. --Dhartung | Talk 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing online to note notability. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:47, 2 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 DLETE as unencyclopaedic essay. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of civil unrest

A subjective essay, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A perfect example of an essay.¨victor falk 12:50, 6 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters (manga)

Unnotable single volume manga. Notability of the author for One Piece does not confer here. Another failed PROD that was deprodded by the anon IP who deprods all anime/manga prods to be pointy. No reason even given for this one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It shouldn't be an issue that there's only a single volume; the issue should be the lack of assertion of notability in reliable sources, which this lacks. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to say it was not notable, in part because it is a single volume, but apparently its not even that, just a single chapter. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Eiichiro Oda - this is not even a one volume manga. It's a short story (when did oneshot become the standard way to describe short stories?) that only appears in the Wanted! collection. There is no page for the collection (which might be able sustain a page of it's own, but is probably better covered on the already short author's page.) Doceirias (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Uh, no, in that case its not even a one shot and certainly not notable. *sigh* ~wonders how many more One Piece chapters are out there...~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever, and not really anything to merge either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, as I see no citations. Also per WP:N, as I see no assertion of notability. Happyme22 (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above reasonings. Greg Jones II 12:15, 1 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 Sungazing. Sandstein 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight diet

non notable diet, no references, no assertion of notability, topic already comprehensively coverer ed at inedia, furthermore the article is largely biographical in nature about a single individual. the article makes ridiculous claims of this man being able to go without eating for hundreds of days at a time. Myheartinchile (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already much better covered under Inedia. WillOakland (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with WillOakland in that this is covered better in the article Inedia. Happyme22 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sungazing which is the more common term for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sungazing article already mentions this guy, there's nothing to merge. WillOakland (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Colonel Warden. I guess if you tried this you'd at least leave a lemon-fresh corpse. Also remove the link from Sunlight (disambiguation) Pburka (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to sungazing. I think "sunglight diet" is a plausible search term. There seems to be some overlap with inedia, so maybe let someone more familiar with the subject do the merging after this is turned into a redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOTION TO CLOSE DISCUSSION AND REDIRECT to Inedia.Myheartinchile (talk) 01:00, 5 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 by nominator. — Edokter • Talk • 12:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica)

No sources, no notability, no content other than plot. dorftrottel (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Episode of a notable TV series; no reason not to include listings for each episode. See List of Star Trek episodes, List of Family Guy episodes, etc. Needs some cleanup and rewriting, but that's a content problem. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?? Are we looking at the same page? Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica) is not an episode list, it's a plot summary for that one episode. I'm not at all opposed to List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series) episodes. The problem with this article is not a content issue, it's a non-content issue. dorftrottel (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Exactly. Perhaps I should have given you some other examples; I just wanted you to see that television episode articles are fairly regular practice. It's a plot summary of one episode, and that's exactly what consensus in practice represents with regards to this particular type of article. It needs some copyediting, wikification and an infobox, but the subject is perfectly encyclopedic, especially considering the five pillars. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Your examples have at least some real-world context ('40th anniversary remastering'). (ii) There's also WP:NOT... dorftrottel (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The episode has only aired in the UK at the moment and doesn't start airing in the US for about another ten minutes. Now it does like all the other season 4 episoade need an awful lot of cleanup. Jon (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to clean up, really, except mainspace. dorftrottel (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I agree that the article is a mess, but - as noted - the episode just aired, and the article is in a state of flux. I would strongly recomment waiting a week or two before nominating the article for deletion - and even then, there is no reason whatsoever why this article would not redirect to the article for the series, season, or what-have-you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's an inplausible search term. dorftrottel (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever. Someone close this, please. dorftrottel (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove your deletion tag. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion tag is removed only after a debate is closed. That's why the tag says "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." (original emphasis) dorftrottel (talk) 11:16, 31 May 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 - Withdrawn by nominator - Peripitus (Talk) 10:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Metz

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jean de Metz

Fails WP:N. Jean de Metz was a footnote to history whose name has come down to us only for one sub-notable reason: he escorted Joan of Arc for a few days on an uneventful journey. Jean de Metz (and Bertrand de Poulengy, also described on the page) were not noblemen, not knights, and their existence was not recorded in conjunction with anything else. The only source linked is personal website. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cipher in some ways, but notable in that he has been given detailed attention by sources, and sometimes exaggerated depiction by fictional treatments of Joan of Arc. On the other hand, either he and Poulengy (and whomever else) get combined into an article "Companions of Joan of Arc" or they get separate pages. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What detailed attention do you mean? Which sources? The only source provided for this article is a personal webpage that fails WP:RS. Durova^Charge! 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hate conversations like this; I really, really do. It makes me not want to enter AFDs at all. --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, your latest edit prompted me to find this and this which provide useful background to this nomination. It may have been better to explain that there was sockpuppetry and self-promotion involved from the beginning. --Dhartung | Talk 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't mention that history in the original nomination because no connection to that individual appeared in the article until after I nominated this page for deletion. Then another editor tried to rescue the article and added faulty references, including a link to that sitebanned vandal's website. It's reasonable that a well-meaning editor would do so by accident; the fellow's website gets a high Google index. Per WP:DENY I don't mention him unless the reason is compelling. Durova^Charge! 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a minor historical figure, but a historical figure nonetheless who has become closely associated with the history and mythology of Joan of Arc. I could easily see a brief survey comparing academic opinions of him, his representation in fictionalised and semi-historical accounts such as literature and cinema, and so on. These bits of information are much better presented in a short single-subject article than as part of the larger Joan of Arc article. I will say, though, I am a strong inclusionist when it comes to historical figures. --Stomme (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What possible fictional coverage could he get that isn't already encompassed at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc? Durova^Charge! 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verifiable and known historical figure. I've completely reworked the page, adding multiple reliable sources to prove notability, as well as a related link. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I had to delete two of those four sources because they failed WP:RS and the remaining two are incomplete because no page numbers are cited. One of those two books happens to be in my personal library and I'll be checking the article facts cited against the index, but at this moment not a single fact on the page is properly referenced. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am confident, then, that you will find the references I have added in order. I am happy to discuss any discrepancies with you. I am sure that you are exercising good faith with me and that you are not merely making it difficult because of the prior history. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not convinced that every historical figure needs a page. However, in order to decide this case, I will definitely need the page numbers for these 300-page books. Please cite the page numbers where this information can be found in each book. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, I don't have the time to meet this particular requirement; I'm not working on a WP:FA here. Google Books offers a search feature which should meet your needs. --Dhartung | Talk 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers are a requirement of Wikipedia's citation policy for all articles - see WP:CITE#HOW. Readers should not have to hunt through the book themselves. I'm really surprised that you would suggest this. Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the notability of the topic for inclusion, and not its compliance with the manual of style. I am quite sure that it can be improved in that way, but it is not a requirement for this AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Metz is a figure who is well-known in history. He's important enough to have his own article as far as I can tell. Malinaccier (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - perferrably into Joan of Arc or some other related page. I do not feel, along with several others that this person sustains enough action to be defined as notable. In addition, I would agree that if more information is found on the topic that defines its notability, I have no qualms on it staying. Even in its current state, it still doesn't work out. There are also problems above that don't help either.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 23:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you would be more specific about the "problems above" that would be helpful. I have uncovered some information relating to the nomination that may answer your questions. As for "more information", there are 275 results in Google Books (which is a reasonably healthy number) and Google Scholar offers some as well (with overlap). There are even some Google News Archive hits for this 15th century fellow. --Dhartung | Talk 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent sources. He was not an incidental bystander, but her lieutenant. Significant in both an historical and fictional context. The rest of the material should be added. DGG (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced figure in extraordinary story of J of A. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment and nomination withdrawal - I find it rather extraordinary that the consensus is to keep, but the page is adequately sourced now. If someone feels compelled to generate articles for all of the 112 other witnesses at Joan of Arc's rehabilitation trial, we now have a precedent. Durova^Charge! 08:29, 2 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. Per WP:MUSIC. Malinaccier (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joccin On Yo Bitch Ass

Non-notable song Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Izzy007 Talk 00:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability; rappercruft? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:V. Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MUSICstates, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." This article does not have reliable sources, and therefore is not notable. Soxred 93 03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above (WP:MUSIC) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe worth a mention on the Soulja Boy page, but no more unless it gets an official release and extensive media coverage as a song(?). For now it just seems to be something put up on Youtube. --Stomme (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOn notable. Anonymous101 (talk) 12:35, 31 May 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.