Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 25 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. BJ 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

File Dropper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completing unfinished nom for an IP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete With the exception of the criticism section (which goes to notability issues), the remainder of the article reads (IMHO) like advertising copy. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This does not warrant its own article, for three reasons: 1) Website in question has no pagerank 2) The Knowledge (XXG) article appears to serve as nothing but a promotional plug; in fact the page was seemingly created by someone with a vested interest in the company - 90% of the edits to the article are also by this user, and 3) because the company in question is no different from countless other companies offering exactly the same service who are not considered notable enough to have their own Knowledge (XXG) page. This article should be deleted and then partially merged into the file hosting service page. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and MergeRedirect and Merge works for me. The only mention of it on sites that would be considered reliable sources are quotes written by File Dropper, sourced from the File Dropper site itself. Not notable enough on its own, yet. The one bit of encyclopedic content (the criticism section) should be merged into a section in file hosting service. See WP:NOTGUIDE, #3. Livitup (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - "Delete and merge" isn't a valid recommendation; anything merged needs a redirect to comply with the GFDL so the copyright history is visible. It's either "redirect and merge" or "delete". -FrankTobia (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, changed to delete. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, you're right. Redirect and merge it is, though I won't cry if a plain delete is the consensus. Livitup (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No it wasn't? It was my nomination. I am an IP user... 92.232.121.101 (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article implies that Filedropper is on par with more established services like Yousendit. The article needs some serious copy-editing to make it sound less like advertising, but a need for a rewrite is not a compelling rationale for deletion. As an aside, if the article does survive and get its rewrite, that main image, which seems to shill for the site and not just illustrate it, needs to go as well. Ford MF (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to List of The Clique series characters to satify the concerns both that this information is worthwhile of inclusion and that is inadequately sourced. There will probably be ongoing problems maintaining the already-large target article, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. brenneman 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alicia Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:FICT and WP:N in having no significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Failed PROD with PROD removed by IP with edit summary of "deleted unnecessary things." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - seriously fails WP:FICT and WP:N per Collectonian's reasoning. Greg Jones II 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This character is apparently fairly popular and heavily discussed. 8000 Ghits for ' "Alicia Rivera" Clique' Lots of book reviews, and a lot of discussion. Major character of a NYT top 3 (in it's catagory) series. That it is targeted to 11 year old girls might mean that most of us haven't heard of it... Hobit (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the series notability. But the notability of the character itself. Being a major character in the series does not meet WP:FICT. She must have extensive, significant coverage in reliable third party sources herself, enough that a reasonable out-of-universe article discussing creation/conception and reception of the character alone, not the series, can be created. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of the reviews spend all their time discussing the main characters. And I'll disagree about the out-of-universe part. WP:FICT isn't relevant as no one can agree to it, and even if it was policy it would still have us keep things if they meet WP:N. There are clearly plenty of reliable sources that discuss the character in an in-universe way. Admittedly that discussion is fairly weak among the reliable sources (non-blog reviews), but quite significant in the non-RSs (huge amounts of discussion on blogs, youtube, etc.) Thus my weak support. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if people want to argue FICT and try to say it doesn't apply because people are keeping it in contention to be pointy, the major points of it are still relevant as it simply summaries WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR and WP:WAF. In-universe violates multiple other guidelines and policies, and non-RS discussion is completely irrelevant as they can not be used in articles anyway. A big plot summary that just repeats what is already in the individual articles and the series article is pointless and redundant. If the character article fails all relevant guidelines, it should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I disagree across the board. WP:FICT isn't official because it lacks anything resembling consensus. They've worked long and hard, but the document is still poor. And I'm unaware of anything else which states that something with RS that otherwise meets WP:N isn't an acceptable topic for an article because the references all deal with the topic "in universe". Hobit (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, FICT was an official guideline until this BS started in the last few months to try to get rid of it by constantly contesting it by inclusionists who somehow think getting rid of it will save all the cruft articles. That aside, this article doesn't meet WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:OR, nor WP:WAF which are not contested and are official. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The books are best sellers, and this is a main character from those novels. Other best selling novels have pages for their characters. I did some Googling for the sales figures, and found one of the books mentioned at Publisher Weekly. http://www.publishersweekly.com/enewsletter/CA6516395/2788.html indicating the 9th book in the series had sold 300,000 copies. I'm not certain where to find the total sales figures of a book at, but surely this indicates they are bestsellers, and thus by wikipedian standards the main characters from them have the right to their own article. Dream Focus (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Your last statement will be heavily refuted because it builds on the concept of inherited notability.

Question: How can you decide if its noteworthy if you don't know how popular the books which feature this character are? Shouldn't there be a rule about sales figures somewhere? You have comic book characters that have their own wikipedia pages, no matter how minor a role they appeared in anything. And forget about inherit nobility since that isn't the case here. The character's description shows she to be a main character in all of these novels. If the books are all bestsellers, then all main characters get their own pages. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/books/bestseller/0622bestchildren.html?scp=1&sq=The+Clique+Lisi+Harrison&st=nyt The New York Times bestsellers list currently shows these books to be at the top 1, 6, and 8 spots in the paperback section! I vote keep, of course. Dream Focus (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't, that isn't how it works. The series having high sales does not automatically make all of its characters notable. If the characters are not significantly covered in reliable sources, and just mentioned in passing when discussing the series as a whole, they do not get an article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Gandalf, Bilbo Baggins, Luke Skywalker, and even Ellcrys the tree that never said anything only existed in two novels in the Shannara series, get their own pages. Jerle Shannara is only in one novel and gets her own page. Galactus had a guardian robot called Punisher who got its own page, along with countless others. You can't accept the same exact thing for Fantasy and Science Fiction genres, but discriminate against whatever this girl social interaction story genre is called. Dream Focus (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Gandalf, Bilbo Baggins, and Luke Skywalker are all major characters with tons of real world coverage. For the rest, people making inappropriate character articles is NOT an excuse to make more. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The threshold of inclusion for fictional characters is significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not the popularity of the work. Articles are easy to create, so many articles are created that shouldn't be. Besides, none of the characters from The Clique have the iconic status of Luke Skywalker or Bilbo Baggins. --Phirazo 03:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceri_James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

In this article Ceri James describes himself firstly as a singersongwriter - there is another singersongwriter called Ceri James it therefore causes confusion. Also the Ceri James listed here although he is a writer he works under different names like Kezzatron and with a band called The mountaineers and he doesn't use the name Ceri James. He works mostly as a session musician not as a singersongwriter under this name therefore the article is misleading. The other singersongwriter Ceri James not listed here has released an album under the name Ceri James.


This article also shouldn't be about an individual it's against Knowledge (XXG) policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerijames (talk • contribs) 2008/06/13 00:10:25

  • Comment: Hmm, user CeriJames nominated article "Ceri James" for deletion, presumably to replace the article with one about CeriJames. I think the current Ceri James fails WP:MUSIC unless "The Ordinary Boys" is a notable band. Tempshill (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: The Ordinary Boys are notable. They (according to our article) have a number of uk chart hits (both albums and singles). Also see these sources: , , , . They are probably bigger in the UK than elsewhere. I'm not sure about Ceri James though. If he is a session musician for The Ordinary Boys, rather than a band member, I'm not sure the notability of the band is that relevant. I've found this source for him being a session musician . I assume that's the same person. Silverfish (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Member of two bands, at least one of which, possibly both, appears to pass WP:BAND (The Ordinary Boys). As for the bizarre assertion that "This article also shouldn't be about an individual it's against Knowledge (XXG) policy", tell that to WikiProject Biography! — Gwalla | Talk 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmm indeed. The creator of the article is a certain User:Alex mountaineer. sparkl!sm 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think alot of the aticles about bands and musicians on wikipedia are done by the band members or musicians themselves. They shouldn't do this it should happen organically. There seem to be quite a few articles that should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerijames (talk • contribs) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What??? It's not relevant that the article might have been done by the person themselves or by their best friend. Of course it's relevant it's the most relevant question you can ask. Also If the ordinary boys is made up of session musicians then it wouldn't be a band - it would be Preston's backing band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerijames (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't relevant who wrote the article. This is about policies, guidelines, and quality of the specific article in question. "Self-written" articles are not Verboten, just not encouraged. Perfectly reasonable, encyclopedic, and neutral articles can be written even by the subject (it's just that many don't bother). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think people should write their own history as a general rule(isn't that what the Nazi's did). But whatever, I already spoke to Ceri James a few years back who quite possibly wrote this article himself - I don't know. I think he was a bit worried there would be confusion about the name that's why he wrote to me. The problem is that it causes too much confusion. He used to be in a band called The Mountaineers(not sure if he still is I think he left) he is not a solo singersongwriter under the name Ceri James. His own solo project is called something else so he should write that name onto wikipedia. Also he wasn't in the Ordinary Boys original line up I think he was drafted in a as a session musician - and the Ordinary Boys don't even exist now. If he's mainly a session musician he should state that otherwise it could mislead people. My own solo album under the name Ceri James is in all major record stores and downloads. It's registered for the chart and I'm a member of the PRS. This article uses Ceri James myspace but I actually have the CeriJames url on myspace he has another url for his solo project under a completely different name. I think for the benefit of both parties the article either needs to be ammended or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.15.164 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete despite the drama surrounding this I've decided to way in. I don't believe the Mountaineers meet notability criteria (based on the content of their article), which would mean that the subject of this article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC (unless all members of notable bands are notable - in which case I'm wrong). Problem is from looking around I don't think the "other Ceri James" (the nom) meets the criteria any better under that name based on searches I've been able to do. I say delete and protect (as it is easy enough to request unprotection if either of the two (or both) prove to be notable in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Additional and if I'm out of order feel free to tell me constructive and civil way on my talk page. I'd like to request that User:Cerijames sticks to discussing the article itself and the policies and guidelines which mean it needs to be deleted as at the moment it looks like a he isn't as important as me arguement which doesn't help the article or wikipedia in anyway. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of he isn't as important as me - people have a right to know accuate information - this article doesn't really provide that. I tried to edit this article to explain who I am and that we are two different people not one and the same but that got deleted by someone on wikipedia. If wikipedia keeps supplying inaccurate, incomplete or poorly researched information no one will take it seriously. Any person who looks up this article couldquite easily end up assuming we are the same person. As I said I don't know all the procedures and guidlines but it needs amending or deletion end of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerijames (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • additional I also noticed Jasynnash2 contradicts himself he says the Mountaineers don't meet notability therefore the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC which means it should be deleted. I'm not proposing to replace this article with a new one about myself immediately - time will tell if either party reaches notability status although there is a strong case that I'm already qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerijames (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Jasynnash2 might be right his proposal might be the fairest way forward. If the article had been about Ceri James the keyboardist and session musician I'd have had no problem with it. It's the singersongwriter part which is causing confusion. I think it must be wikipedia policy that all articles contain accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.15.164 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) JForget 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well, this one is a doozy, since it's hard to tell what references are referring to which Ceri James. However, it appears that the current subject Ceri James is a touring member of Echo and the Bunnymen, which combined with the other claims presently in the article leads me to believe that person is notable. As far as I can tell, this is NOT the Ceri James who released an album called "Start and Begin", for whom I have not found evidence of notability. Presumably, this is the Ceri James who nominated the article for deletion. Another Ceri James, possibly one of these two and possibly a third, does theatrical lighting design. Who'd have thought there would be so many Ceri James's? gnfnrf (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

weak delete/ammend' true enough he was a session musician(possibly still is)for Echo & The Bunnymen and Ordinary Boys but I'm not sure that being a session man for either of these bands constitutes being a significant band member. He wasn't a founder member or significant member in either band and he is already mentioned in the Echo and the Bunnymen article so there doesn't need to be a seperate article. Although he definitely was a founding and significant member of the Mountaineers it's unlikely that they reach notability either cause they only released one album. Even if they did then this article should redirect and not mention contain personal references to his own project which doesn't obtain notability. If wikipedia believes his session work does obtain notability then again personal references to his own project shouldn't really be mentioned as again this could create a conflict of interest and isn't relevant at the moment. Perhaps the fairest way would be to ammend the article - I know alot of people are unhappy with the whole deletion process on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.194.58 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ari L. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. His claim to fame is being director of a department in a non-notable company and producing an unnamed documentary. Google hits turn up different Ari Kaplans. Smashville 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Reporting for a newspaper doesn't ipso facto make one notable. Otherwise, there would be tens of thousands of bios of people that reported for newspapers. Knowledge (XXG) isn't the facebook for reporters. For a reporter to be notable s/he must satisfy the wp:bio requirements. Did this reporter received significant coverage in reliable sources? Is this reporter widely respected by his/her peers? An affirmative answer to any of theses questions would satisfy the wp:bio notability policy. However, this article has been around since October, and has yet to show how this person meets wp:bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- disclaimer, I started the article.
I think the dividing line between a reporter who doesn't merit coverage here, and one who does, is: "has his or her work been discussed in other authoritative references?" I suggest Kaplan passes this test. Geo Swan (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Where are these authoritative references? --Smashville 13:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - A passing reference to the work of a director does not make the director notable. The work itself is also of marginal notability and there don't appear to be an abundance of references to it, anyway. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looks like a nice little jurist-stub. Sadly, none of the sources are reliable. There's his own sites, an alumni magazine, the commercial listing at law.com, and not much else. That does not verify his notability as a living director, an attorney, or a reporter. I'd change my mind if there was a review of the documentary on a TV station, or a major periodical (other than one for which he writes). There are a million lawyers, me included, and we are not all notable. Sorry, maybe later, when the film gets reviewed. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete as marginally spam: a non-notable company and web site. Article has serious conflict of interest concerns. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dulcinea Media, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company article created by company employees. Most of those editing this article have also spammed other articles with links to their website. The only sources in the article are: the company website, another company's website that doesn't mention the company, the third is a MediaPost article about one of the company's websites - this one could be reliable...but keep in mind, it's not about the article subject, just something owned by the article subject, the fourth is a link to another of their sites, the fifth is a press release, the sixth is a picture and the seventh is a link to the ASJA cautioning people from doing business with the subject. Smashville 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderline speedy delete. Makes claims of notability, but does not back them up. If the business's only claims to notability involves media coverage of a publicity stunt it launched by hiring a naked busker, I call shenanigans. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. By inspection, appears to be an encyclopedia of sorts, gathering and report news and related-to-news topics, including good citing to mainstream media. Thus it itself could qualify as WP:RS, or at least clearly not linkspam as nom seems to think. For its own page to exist though, of course we need it to be notable, not just reliable. Their media page includes numerous links/reprints of substantial mention in media. Also, I found this recommendation by a professional librarian (it's self-pub/blog, but it's an expert speaking in her area in her official capacity, so I think it's RS). A site that claims to do something but for which there is a reliable cite stating it does not actually does support notability of the site...frauds, hoaxes, and other crap that are important enough to be reported on as such pass WP:NOTABLE. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to reread WP:RS policy... The fact that it sometimes cites other reliable sources means those sources meet WP:RS, not this one.DreamGuy (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting the wp:corp notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- As someone who probably spent hours removing some of the spam links added by this company, pretty much without exception it doesn't appear to have any more reliability, notability, etc. as any other random blog site, these people are just more coordinated in their spamming than most. DreamGuy (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- WP:CORP isn't the relevant standard. This is a web publisher so it may be something a little like WP:WEB or WP:AUTH. Publishers are known, and notable, for their reach, readership, the content they publish, etc., not for their internal corporate organization. It's sometimes hard to get sources because they tend not to attract a lot of commentary - the media writing articles about itself is a kind of navel gazing that doesn't get a lot of mainstream attention despite the notability of the publication. There are quite a few reliable sources that mention Dulcinea Media and its website, although I haven't yet found a significant mention in a major third party source. There are many passing mentions in major sources, of the sort that X was covered on DM, or the CEO of DM was interviewed to say X. If the figure of 40 employees is right it is a significant web publisher. Alexa ranking is in the 20,000 range, which is nothing to sneeze at. On the fundamentals, an encyclopedic knowledge of web publishing would be aided by our covering this company, and without it the encyclopedic treatment of the field would be incomplete. Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't understand why we use a soft touch with people who promote themselves or their companies on Knowledge (XXG). Their articles are never neutral, the information is rarely verifiable and the authors themselves frequently employ questionable methods (socks, etc) to try and help their case. This article was obviously written by people directly employed by the namesake of the article and so would have to be completely rewritten to come within NPOV. This essentially means the page can be deleted until the company becomes notable enough to warrant an article written by a third party. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball keep. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This term does not appear to be notable. While it is clearly used, as seen by the two external links that use it, there is nothing to provide notability for this term itself. seresin (public computer) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that lack of notability was given as a deletion reason.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
When the rationale for deletion simultaneously acknowledges that there exist sources about the subject, I don't really see how there's a non-notability argument there. Croctotheface (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not acknowledge that there are sources about the subject. I said there were sources that use the term. Two very different things. seresin (public computer) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, ok, then I'd suggest looking at this Google news search to find a bunch of sources about the concept of bad beats. Croctotheface (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please provide some evidence for this assertion. seresin (public computer) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanctuary Rig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rock band; db-band tag removed by an anon IP with no other edits. There is a COI issue - the author is a member of the band - but the main point is that they don't, by a long way, meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Only 128 ghits, mostly blogs and Myspace. Their first record, said to have been released "to great critical acclaim", gets 9 Ghits. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete by Esanchez7587 , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bonbonita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Slang, real? chiefhuggybear (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Montana: Disney's Karaoke Series (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's nothing notable about this karaoke album. A list of the varioius disney karaoke albums might be worth having but not individual articles Wolfer68 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy Delete under A3 criteria. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

List of BOSH software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a link directory. Damiens.rf 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pork Sauce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Condiment that is supposedly "one of the world's popular side sauces, on the same level as soy sauce and ketchup", but with no sources to back it up. A google search finds no direct hits for "Pork Sauce". Fails WP:V and a possible hoax. Mars2035 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Move to Shallot Pork Sauce, Expand, and Rewrite the current title as a disambiguation page. Excite Advanced Search mentions shallot pork sauce which is apparently Chinese, and since the article says that pork sauce is Asian, I'm guessing that's what they're talkin' about. However, Excite mentions several different foods with the name "pork sauce," so Pork Sauce should be a disambiguation page. GO-PCHS-NJROTC 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It seems like Shallot Pork Sauce doesn't really have much to do with what the Pork Sauce article is talking about (the article says it has a "blood-like texture"?) so I don't know about moving it. I think someone should just start from scratch at Shallot Pork Sauce using your reference. I don't really see a need for a disambiguation page either, as there isn't really anything to disambiguate between (the article is already orphaned), but maybe it would be useful.

--Mars2035 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the article does not tell anything about what the sauce is. As I cook and research numerous Asian cuisines, I would be hard pressed to tell you which "pork sauce" this was because so many Asian cuisines have a sauce to go with pork and then again it depends on the preparation. The article honestly just seems like a vague, poorly written stub. As a food historian, the mention of its importance compared to ketchup is annoying as well as American/English ketchup has its roots in Asian fish sauces.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep(Non-admin closure) the nomination reason is obsolete as the page now lists two articles and no other delete reasons were offered. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 05:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A disambiguation page that disambiguates nary an article. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle Theft Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We have deleted this twice as spam but it don't seem too bad to me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep - seems OK, it has NPOV and all that, but it doesn't seem to be quite notable. Limited news coverage, Google returns one press release and a story based completely off the press release. Calvin 1998  20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It was originally written like a press release and I tagged it for speedy deletion as spam. Another editor cleaned it up which is why it's not spammy now. I get a page or so of ghits; seems notable. Ros0709 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vic Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination as per Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22#Vic Jacobs, closed as overturn and relist (see first AfD). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

They are in the references section. Davewild (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The references still could use some work. The url for that SI article has been added. Footnotes are needed for the other 2 references so that it's clear what in the article they are supporting.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Colne JFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article originally PRODded with the rationale:

“ ” This message was then posted on the talk page, which I'm going to count as the PROD being contested (hence bringing it to AfD): “ ” ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Finalnight

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Contested prod.) WP:LISTCRUFT. No encyclopaedic value as it will never be complete. There's already a category of ITV programmes so this is just an unnecessary duplicate. Ros0709 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Changing to Keep. As Skidoo points out, the list is probably not too broad, which was my only real doubt about the article. DHowell makes a valid point, to which citing WP:WAX is no kind of answer. And, as I've pointed out above, the nomination and all delete votes are contrary to the WP:CLS guideline. (Citing WP:CCC is no kind of answer to that, either. If consensus actually does change on this point that'll be one thing - as it is, an AfD discussion is a discussion about whether an article meets our policies and guidelines: and unless someone has a new argument that hasn't been presented yet, this article does). AndyJones (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO, your previous citations of WP:CLS and WP:LIST pretty much blew away my main argument, which was that having both a list and a category was a Bad Thing. If I was the closing admin I would probably be swayed to close as "keep" on the strength of your argument (and unless any major new comments are made I expect the nomination will close that way). Personally, I believe that's not a great policy, but Policy is Policy. OTOH, I believe WP:WAX is similarly the exact right response above for the same reason: WP:WAX is a policy and it applies precicely to that kind of reasoning. Ros0709 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate we're no longer disagreeing, but I think I should point out that WP:WAX is neither a policy nor a guideline, merely part of an essay. AndyJones (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right; my bad. It still answers the question "why the arguments to keep in all of those discussions don't apply to this list" though! Ros0709 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Although, with respect, it doesn't, because:
  1. the essay at WP:AADD is there for the benefit of idiots and newbies (and sometimes for us experienced editors who should know better), while DHowell was making a proper grown-up point that deserved more than a glib answer;
  2. I refer you to the second bullet of the nutshell of WP:AADD which reads: "Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)", which is exactly what you did; and
  3. it really is a different argument: WP:WAX criticises the logic of an argument that runs "keep this article on twibbles because we have an article on twobbles" which is irrelevant because it purports to shift the focus to the reasons for having an article on twobbles, rather than the subject under discussion. DHowell was making a different and more articulate point: other articles exactly comparable to this one have been AfD'd, and kept, after mature discussion of the principles which should also be applied at this AfD (to which he provided links). It's surely quite easy to see that is a different argument from that at WP:WAX, even if if you don't necessarily agree with my view that it is valid and more compelling. AndyJones (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Again, User:Skanter, creates another useless page. The Mexican population is really small. There is really nothing about Mexicans in Brazil. In fact, in his only source in this page, he incorrectly list the population at 1,100, but it if you read the source that is the number of Brazilians who lived in Mexico and then later returned back to Brazil. These people are not Mexican. In that source is says the Mexican population in Brazil is 664. Why is there an article for 664 people, and there is no information about them. This article is not notable. Lehoiberri (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete if anything, it's a "definition" but not an encyclopedia article. Am I a "Texan Kansan" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ma-Haw-Tha-Dha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic and not verifiable. Google search results in two unrelated hits. Crowsnest (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the consensus commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Consumerization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism Madcoverboy (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. If you still feel strongly about merging, address it on the article talk page. — Maggot 10:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Angel of Grozny: Inside Chechnya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a noteworthy book per WP:NB Livitup (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

List of ECW events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) isn't a directory, and certainly isn't a catalog to list every event. Relevant ECW events are already listed on List of ECW pay-per-view events. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. On a strict vote count it would be a no consensus, but the complete lack of references from reliable sources means that it doesn't meet WP:V, and that's non-negotiable. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Katsudo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable recently created martial art; more ghits seem to be for the similarly named art derived instead from American Kenpo and for non-martial arts usages of the term. JJL (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete; may be editorially redirected to where ever.  Sandstein  22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill Blankenship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating for deletion: assistant football coach and college football player, has not met guidelines for notability set forth in Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject College football/Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was No consensus. There are some references, some of which have some quality, and I think they get over the line. The weight of the arguments is roughly equal. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Low notability outside of Australian chess...? Tim (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete "junior champion" does not seem like a notable achievement and the fact that I was unable to find any non trivial mentions in RS supports this conclusion. -Icewedge (*bleet*) 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, wikify, and get more references. We delete way too many articles based on the quality of the article itself rather than its subject. We should not be deleting articles (aside from copyright violations) about notable subjects just because the article itself is written poorly. Running an advanced search at Excite.com, where the exact phrase box contains "Rebecca Harris" and the all of these words box contains "chess." There's a lot of sources with information about the chess champion. As with anything, not all of the sources would meet WP:RS, but there are many that would. A chess champion usually wouldn't have to have much notability outside of chess to be worthy of an article, just as an NFL player wouldn't need much notability outside of football, an actress wouldn't need much notability outside of the movies or the theater, and a murderer wouldn't need much notability outside of the world of crime. GO-PCHS-NJROTC 18:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Your explanation that we should not base our judgment on the quality of the article is a valuable one, but it seems to me that the nominator launched this AfD on the basis of the notability, and not the quality. SyG (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as I am uncertain about the notability of these professedly junior championships, and hope that chess people chime in. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This person is not notable, be it in general terms or even within the world of chess. Actually, her level at chess is even lower than most members of the WP:Wikiproject Chess. SyG (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep among false positives is RS coverage covering her chess achievments, also this one almost exclusively about her. She has RS coverage, the question is what makes someone a notable chess player. Are these professional? Is this a lower body that she'll "grow out" of? I.e. in baseball from Little League to the Major Leagues? I don't know, I don't know chess. TravellingCari 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep has been getting attention in WP:RS; I remember reading about her recently in my small local paper. JJL (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keen and expand I believe there is more that can be added to this article, although I would like to see that happen quite soon. If nothing is done in a few months then I'll support deletion, but for now I think something can be done. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The playing strength here of 1800 is not even master level, rather it is a typical ranking for a fairly strong amateur, but nowhere near a professional. Neither the WFM title or a U16 junior championship of a country without strong chess traditions carries all that much prestige. It's a good achievement to be sure (and miles above the level I'm playing at), but it isn't really a claim for encyclopedic notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Olympic athelete. Any young football player would be kept. Chess should be no exception. Lab-oratory (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. The Chess Olympiad has no connection to the Olympic Games, and she has not played in the main event, just the U16 version. We don't actually keep any young football player, we have a minimum requirement that they must have made a first-team appearance in a professional league. Similar for chess we must have some threshold of notabiltiy. I think there's general agreement at WikiProject Chess that national champions are notable, but not national junior champions.Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Keep, expand, wikify, and get more references.'"junior champion" is a notable achievement given the fact that Rebecca not only holds a WFM title but she also currently holds an international ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMrsshocker7167 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment.Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Catherine Lip may be relevant here. Lip is also a former Australian girl's champion, also a Women's Fide Master and has a rating about 200 points higher than Rebecca Harris, and yet her article was deleted.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm wondering to what extent 5 years of total inactivity with regard FIDE rated games affected Lip; there's certainly no question that Harris is playing and thus likely to get further coverage in the future. I think there's a case for giving this article a bit more time, and certainly thanks to Pawnkingthree it's already in a much better shape than it was 24 hours ago.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards a Keep, purely because in this particular case there does seem to be coverage out there: Chessbase is a respected news site. Not sure about the Penrith Press, is it just a local paper? Certainly her chess achievements aren't exceptional yet, but the attention she's got so far suggests she may just be notable.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted under G1. Nousernamesleft 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

War of the broken oar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article purports to be about the "War of the broken oar", a rivalry between Georgia Tech and Clemson. While other rivalries involving the schools are well-documented (Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate or Textile Bowl, qq.v.), this article provides no reliable sources that document the use of this name. Additional searching turned up no sources. Accordingly, the article fails the verifiability guideline. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete - unanimous vote --JForget 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ProgressFM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed Prod. Special event radio station with a one-week permit scheduled to operate in July. Promotional tone with no 3rd-party WP:RS coverage. Its short term nature fails WP:NOT#NEWS. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no claim to notability, transient interest only. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was merge to Canon EOS; implemented as a redirect for now so that the merge can occur from the history.  Sandstein  20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Canon EOS 300X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This non-notable commercial product was previously nominated; the result was "merge". Four months later, the merge hasn't happend, so I'm nominating again. Mikeblas (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge (Same arguments as in the previous AFD) Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W30 to Cyber-shot. Knowledge (XXG) is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Knowledge (XXG) is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article, and Knowledge (XXG) would be hard to distinguish from an old Sears Roebuck catalog . There are dozens of poorly referenced stub articles about various Canon EOS cameras. One list would be appropriate, useful, and helpful. The other Canon EOS cameras should be group-nominated for this merger in a supplementary AFD. Otherwise Knowledge (XXG) will be cluttered with these articles as well as, presumably articles for the red-link models in the Canon EOS article. (New comment: If no closing admin can figure out what to merge, then replace this unreferenced stub by a redirect to Canon EOS) Edison (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep an SLR from a company like Canon has considerable media coverage, such as at least one in-depth review from each of the major photography magazines. Camera models definitely can be fleshed out into strong articles, have a look at Canon AE-1 for an example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Commnet. See WP:WAX. The AE-1 was a trend-setting camera; this model is a secondary model of a derivative of a somewhat interesting model; even then, the root model is nothing near the AE-1 in terms of industry influence. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per previous AFD- Although I'm curious why the nominator couldn't just be Bold and do the merge it themselves, instead of bringing it to AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is already answered above: I don't think the product is notable. Since the material in the article is unreferenced and Knowledge (XXG) doesn't allow OR, it hsould be removed -- not merged. Have you asked the voters in the previous AfD why they didn't merge it? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per previous AFD. Just because one doesn't agree with the outcome of an AFD doesn't mean an article should be renominated so soon after the previous AFD has been closed with a decision. Exactly why the merge hasn't taken place, I do not know. My suggestion is contact the closing editor. Perhaps they haven't gotten around to it yet. There is no time limit on making improvements or merges. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Redirect to List of Nokia products. Only one "vote" suggests keeping the article in its current form. The history is preserved so anyone who wishes to merge anything can do so. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nokia 7250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article remains a stub because insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make this a useful article; at least, one that's not itself an advert or a review. The previous AfD resulted in "keep" because many users insisted there was no problem securing references for this product, and that it was notable. After five months, the article remains an uncited stub that reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

7250 was the most stolen handset". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • No, it was established at the last AFD that the product was notable and the searches that I have made confirm this. The complaint of your nomination is that no-one has done anything since to add these sources to the article. This is not a reason to delete, per WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything at which shows that search results don't establish notability. WP:GOOGLEHITS says quite the opposite. No amount of effort makes the non-notable notable, and if it did, we'd have an even bigger problem defining notability than we do now. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh? Anyway, I have inspected the sources revealed by the searches above and the notability of the phone is clear. A googlehits argument would be based up the more than 3 million hits for a general google search. That is certainly so huge that it is indicative but my judgement is based upon the more selective searches and the specific sources which are decisive. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, A7, G11, and now SNOW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Uzual Suspectz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete yet another "promising band" that doesn't meet WP:BAND Mayalld (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete, no evidence of notability. TravellingCari 03:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Paperboy Jack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources discuss this band. Fails WP:MUSIC indopug (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Td7603 (talk)I see plenty of noted referances. perhaps it was referanced incorrectly?

  • They are all either the band's own website, CD-selling websites, and other generally unreliable references (Sugarbuzz mag for example, which doesn't look to be professional in any way). We need multiple independent, reliable sources to discuss the band extensively (more than trivial mentions). We're talking about websites/publications like Rolling Stone, Allmusic, the NME etc. indopug (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Userfy. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

mine has refrences , plot, cast list, and this one ive listed is a sentence and a refrence from an unreliable source. if ur gonna mark my article for deletion, u better mark that one while ur at it.--Jwein (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi. Sorry to dump on your hard work like this. Can I suggest that, should the article be deleted, it is first userfied to User:Jwein/Funny People. In this way, nothing is lost you will be able to work on it until such time as the film enters production and passes the notability guidelines, whereupon it can be transferred back into the mainspace. As for that other film article, I'll go prod it now. Steve 07:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course. You don't actually need to do anything much. If the decision is made to delete the article, the admin who enacts this will be able to move the entire content of the article, including its history (to keep the record of your contributions), to User:Jwein/Funny People. Once this has been done, you can simply keep editing the article as you see fit, until such time as the film becomes notable. When this occurs, you can move the article back to Funny People. If you need any help doing this when the time comes, please let me know and I'll be glad to be of assistance. In addition, if you want to create any other articles, which you fear may not yet be notable, you can create 'sandbox' versions of these in your userspace (at something like User:Jwein/XXX (where 'XXX' = name of article)) to edit in the meantime, then move them to the main article space when you think it'll be OK to do so. I did the same thing with pages such as User:Steve/Future/White Jazz (film). That production was supposed to film in January 2008, but stalled, which is why it's still in my userspace. Steve 14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Elvis Presley. Anyone wanting to merge in part or all of the content can access it in the history. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Political beliefs of Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Any sourced views of Elvis can be discussed on his page. Weird start "Not much has been written about Elvis's political views" Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

<--

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article seems to fail the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. The band has released 1 album under an independent label (WP:MUSIC requires at least 2 albums on a major label or a notable independent label), there has been no non-trivial media coverage from independent and reliable sources and the band has not charted a hit on any national music chart although there is mention of having a hit single on a local radio station. All in all, it seems to be a band that may be known locally but, again, it fails the basic tenets of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-->

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Elvis sightings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Elvis lives conspiracy theory is discussed in the Elvis Presley phenomenon article. The "Media examples" is purely a trivia list. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Per WP:NOT and because the entire article is a huge trivia list. Juliancolton 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is at least useful as a plausible search term, so don't delete it completely. Convert it into a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Elvis Presley phenomenon, per Zag. Although there had been, in 1987, a flurry of reports of people who claimed to have seen Elvis (including an AP report of someone who thought she saw him at a Burger King in Kalamazoo), this article barely mentions those. It would probably have been called "Elvis sightings in popular culture", except that savvy Wikipedians know better than to use those last three words in the title of an article. This is pretty much the generic ipc article, cataloging all known mentions on TV shows, comic strips, and songs, of an Elvis sighting. "Walk the Dinosaur" isn't in here, but everything else seems to be. Nothing worth keeping or merging, but Zag is right about this being a good search term. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe anyone would consider deleting this article. Elvis sightings are a widely-known phenomenon and figure as largely in popular culture as Catholic saint apparitions. They have been continuing for at least 20 years and there are several websites devoted to the phenomenon. They can conceivably be considered distinctly separate from the "Elvis lives" conspiracy theory, as many of the "sighters" are not subscribers to any particular theory about Elvis. At any rate, readers may want to consult a catalog of sightings not unlike a discography or list of tour dates. I think the article should stay although I can't comment on revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.108.141 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete or rename at least. The article seems to be more about Elvis in the media, listing movies, songs, and TV shows that had an Elvis character. The title seems misleading. Even renamed I doubt it is useful information to anyone. Gtstricky 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Smoke lounge studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Anthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Hungarian artist; disputed deletion. DeletionAccount (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Shereth 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Shannon Whisnant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsalvageable article about a minor participant on daytime reality TV Madcoverboy (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fashion through the ages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Information in this article already exists at 1960s in fashion, 1970s in fashion, 1980s in fashion, and 1990s in fashion. Captain panda 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was withdrawn by nom before any commentary began. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spreadtrum Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A NASDAQ listing (which can be purchased, albeit at a stiff cost) is not in itself notable. The text of this unsourced, single sentence stub offers no hint of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn by nom: Although I made this nomination in good faith, the stock's NASDAQ listing has stirred up enough passing commentary in the financial media that I do not believe this article will be deleted through an AfD discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, no evidence he passes WP:ATHLETE. TravellingCari 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tyler Fukumoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Did what I could to salvage this article about a high school basketball player. Found sources where I could. Still not convinced subject meets WP:N. Dlohcierekim 14:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, it's certainly better than it was. It was kiddie-wiki nonsense when it started. I agree with Dlohcierekim; there are any number of high school basketball players who do well, but they have no article. I'm thinking delete but with necessary kudos to a great user who managed to be able to read between the lines and attempt a rescue. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete While high school basketball players could be notable, I don't think this guy makes the cut. Note that he wasn't even nominated to the McDonald's All-American team. Zagalejo^^^ 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Being named to the McDonald's All-American Team is notable, but unsourced --T-rex 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Er, an unsubstantiated claim. ;) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but here is a non-PDF link to the 2008 teams. He's not there. (Well, you have to click on the 2008 box at the lower right. I can't link directly there.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the HTML link! What about the year before? Or is that the year in question? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The article claims he was named to the 2007-08 team, so we'd be looking at the 2008 roster. There is also an all-time roster PDF, and he's not listed anywhere there. (Nothing between Tom Freeman and Dan Gadzuric.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete per unanimous vote and WP:MUSIC argument--JForget 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Josh Dean (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete yet another "up and coming musician", who will undoubtedly warrant an article if at some point in the future he actually becomes a notable musician unlike 99%+ of up and coming musicians. One single source, and no others found. Doesn't meet WP:MUS Mayalld (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Erin Finn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Got a smidge of media coverage for supposedly being one of the many victims of Anthony Pellicano. However, all the coverage that she received is one from one event. There's also wp:blp concerns. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral for now I'll change this later one way or the other, but the article at least claims she's notable for multiple things - the wiretap and her businesses (don't think the Salon column establishes notability to the latter, but I'll dig more). Townlake (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Found nothing more than trivial coverage of her businesses. I didn't understand the BLP concerns on first read, but now that I've done my digging, I think the concerns are valid. Townlake (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's more to her story. I've heard of her and recall she did something with TechTV, Kevin Mitnick and some Linux thing. Frankly, any hot girl that's into Linux has my vote. I'll dig around also and see what I can find. Lexlex (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep, with kudos to Paul Erik.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Revelations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A pop music group which entered the contest to choose the UK entry for the Eurovision Song Contest and didn't win. No evidence of any actual released material, doesn't seem to meet any requirement of WP:MUSIC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete Don't appeared to be signed. Buc (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd like to offer the gentle reminder that Knowledge (XXG) guidelines ask that we do a search for sources prior to bringing an article to AfD. This article very comfortably meets WP:N, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Just now I've added five references. The article by Charlotte Cripps from The Independent was also reprinted in the Belfast Telegraph (2007-01-31, p. 1). Keep. Paul Erik 00:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. As Paul Erik points out, this article clearly meets WP:N, or WP:MUSIC criterion 1, so should not be deleted.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone wishing to merge the articles can do so. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

UK Deaths in Custody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons discussed below:

Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • On first glance, the article appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information that is true, but not important enough for an encyclopedia. However, examining the forked article dealing with "controversial deaths" in police custody introduces more problems. The information is incomplete, dealing with only "black/ethnic minority" deaths – not only a bizarre criterion (basically "everyone but whites") but also potential WP:POV – as well as it being unclear who is actually deciding what is "controversial" and not in the first place.

While i am trying to assume good faith here, it also appears to me that the article creator is aware of the article's heavy bias (, ) or even untroubled by this situation. i am inclined towards deleting both but i'm at quite a loss on how to go forward, so thought i would request community viewpoints. Thanks. tomasz. 13:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Wow, I can understand why this has ended up here. Trying to negotiate the mindfield that these articles present is a tricky one... Firstly, I'd suggest getting rid of Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody as the title alone is a slippery slope, never mind that all the info is contained in the other article. As far as the main article on discussion here is concerned I believe the problem is that, essentially, this is a simple list of info. I did have the thought that this list is really pointing at something that may be more suited to a line or two in another article, but I'm afraid that the unnerving amount of POV behind it tends to muddy the waters too much. My vote, for the time being, is to Delete the both of them, but I welcome further input. OBM | 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, regarding Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody: I now see that the info doesn't appear in the other article... obviously didn't read it as carefully as I should have. However to clarify I think that the other article's faults are certainly shared by this one, and the title adds to it. (I'll shut up now) OBM | 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Due to the POV. An article based on only black / ethnic minority deaths seems to be trying to make a point and could lead to accusations of racism. Dpmuk (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article can be recreated from a fork from the Knowledge (XXG) article "Death in custody"Examples of deaths in custody in the UKand when there is more information about deaths in custody in the UK than is to be found on the page "Black Deaths in Custody" from the "The Institute of Race Relations"-web-site (IRR) (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep -- The article concept itself is notable, but the article will have to be changed dramatically. In its current incarnation, the article is race bait; however, only unsalvageable articles can be deleted. I don't see that this article fits that description. 83.203.129.196 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for UK Deaths in Custody or merge to Death in custody#UK. Delete Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody. The topic of "death in custody" is clearly notable. These two articles are both in urgent need of careful editing to get them on topic and to remove POV. The references include criticism by Institute of Race Relations of deaths of blacks in UK custody. Another news article referenced deals with death of youth of all description. Death of IRA prisoners is not addressed. I do not agree with simply making a Knowledge (XXG) article by copying the Institute of Race Relations list of black deaths in custody and calling it an article, or by selectively adding names of non-blacks to it. There should be only names/cases which have been noted by reliable sources as "controversial deaths" or landmark cases which led to government inquiries, new laws, or societal changes such as prison reform. There is nothing encyclopedic about a selective listing of people who died for one reason or another or for reason unknown. Look for articles from mainstream press in the UK about the problem of death in custody and a good article can be written. I would look for articles about the problem in general, rather than individual cases, although touches on the larger problem. See also a book by the group Inquest "Dying on the inside:examining women's deaths in prison(2008) and "Unlocking the truth:families' experiences of the investigation of deaths in custody(2007)" See also the book "In the Care of the State? Child Deaths in Penal Custody in England and Wales (2005)" . See the BBC on custody deaths , . There is 4NI.co.uk "New agency set to probe deaths in custody" . The UK Parliament issued a report on it . Edison (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Combine, and source this is not really acceptable as stands--the table by itself is not encyclopedic without a discussion; the lists are in urgent need of individual sourcing--which should certainly be possible, though it may take some time to do it. I dont think its indiscriminate, since inclusion was based on the sources cited. DGG (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Much of the evidence supporting deletion is listed above, however I would add the fact that any article on deaths in police custody must include some reference/warning about statistical bias - all people in police custody have a higher statistical likelihood of death, not because police officers and civilian detention staff are murderers, but because of the mathematical principles involved: the incidence of such deaths would be the same as that for the general population only if people were arrested at random from that population! A better way of explaining is to use examples: (a) a number of people fight violently, and all get arrested, but despite statutory procedures for medical treatment, sometimes life-threatening injuries get missed by the doctors called to certify fitness for detention; (b) some people who are apparently drunk are drugged and/or ill, and the previous caveat applies; (c) "Deaths in police custody" also includes anyone who dies within 24 hours of being released from custody, so a sex offender who is released due to non-co-operation by the victim, or who is charged with offences but gets bail (to which they are entitled unless grounds exist for refusal), might well leave the police station and subsequently (and unexpectedly) commit suicide. So the death rate for this class of people is statistically higher than for the general population. And there is a more complex and emotive argument relating to social inequalities between ethnic groups and variations in rates of offending that are statistically linked to those inequalities - the evidence shows that poorer people are much more likely to steal from each other than from richer people, who can better afford security. The relevance? People who steal are more likely to get arrested and be locked up! GraceCourt (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - while the article may not be perfect, its basic claims are sourced, and it should be expanded, not deleted. -- 790 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly merge with Controversial Deaths in UK Police Custody. Biophys (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The "articles" both deal purely with Black deaths, conisdered controversial only by the Author's Original Research. There is no criteria for inclusion, and given that inclusion cannot be based purely on ethnicity (Actual it's all Black, and "ethnic minority", though i didn't know that was race), to actually expand the article would give us an exceptionally long list of people all of whom are not notable and the list would of course be entirely unencyclopedic. I would support an article on the subject of controversial deaths while in police custody, given the acceptable references in the Secondary article, however neither of these lists show any merit as articles in themselves, and could only serve to be worse if merged. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Perhaps i wouldn't agree entirely with a new article on the subject (the lists still need to go). On inspection of the sources that seemed reliable, i notice one is from 1991, and referenced as an acceptable arguemnt to the now, and the other is written by a purely biased writer. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Combine - a notable concept, but no need for two articles on it --T-rex 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dog Soldiers: Fresh Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a planned sequel to the 2002 film Dog Soldiers, but it has not entered production. Furthermore, there is not even an IMDb listing, which usually exists for projects in development. Per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not warranted. No issue with mentioning the consideration of a sequel in the article for the first Dog Soldiers film. Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Just for the record, if anyone was curious, the tapeworm business came about as the result of a loss of a accent mark in a bad cut-and-paste job. Alas for electronic translations. Shereth 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

La Para (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Myspace musician, nom under WP:N and WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Merge into Nice (WIPO). PhilKnight (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trademark Classes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS. Any important information can be merged into Trademark. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Threen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy deleted. Article did not assert any notability (WP:CSD A7), and looked like marketing for the company (WP:CSD G11). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Expressor software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dundalk gaels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although google search shows several ghits , there is no significant coverage is multiple reliable sources. Same for google news, no significant coverage, only passing sound. Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Redirect to Walter Russell#University of Science and Philosophy (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

University of Science and Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails to assert notability. Jehochman 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete, speedy g7 author request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Vethia Lords of Ralk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fantasy novel from a vanity press publisher, created by an SPA. Only 22 G-hits, all of which are either this article, Wiki mirrors or various online sales outlets. No reliable sources, or indeed reviews or articles about the book on any level. Completely fails WP:BK's criteria.  RGTraynor  12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The book is still new so it hasn't had any reviews about it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealRael (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No evidence of notability. Sales figures? Reviews? Articles abut the book? Edison (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment This article got a second AFD and a speedy nomination and was blanked while this AFD was going. I reverted the article to a version which was not blanked and which had only this AFD posted. If the article creator wants it speedily deleted, he can say so here and it will be done. There seems to be no claim of notability. Edison (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • the author who I created the page for wants it deleted, since he refuses to show any sales information about the book. I respect his decision and ask that it be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealRael (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was consensus to keep. — Athaenara ✉ 00:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reef (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Product or company has no significant coverage in secondary sources. Only passing mention of brand in some newspapers. Fails WP:N. Also written like an advertisement. Assize (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete No sources, and no evidence of notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Did you even bother searching for references before voting Delete? Did you even bother reading my Keep vote with supporting refs? Just in case, I added a few refs into the article. --Millbrooky (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you had the references, you should have placed them in the heart of the article itself to improve it. Nobody bothered to do this--until you came along after I voted. I certainly inspected the article itself...and saw only the company's web site cited as a source. PS: The Knowledge (XXG) tag about its this company's notability is still on the article itself...which tells me others may share my concerns about its notability. However, I've removed the unreferenced tag due to your good reliable sources. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - clearly notable per a quick perusal of the web. Please take the time to understand the notability guidelines and AfD process before attempting to delete articles for lack of sources (which is not a deletion criterion). Wikidemo (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please see point 9 of WP:DEL. The failure to find reliable sources for at least a year is a ground for deletion. Putting that aside, the references so far only touch incidentally on the sandals and are more directly relevant to the founders of the company, and so this could only be called a weak keep at best. Assize (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources here to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was no consensus: default to keep. — Athaenara ✉ 00:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable speakers with a New York accent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list is highly subjective, randomly assembled, and somewhat strange: why wouldn't people from a specific location speak in the accent of that location? Besides, as any New Yorker will testify, there is no such thing as a Noo Yawk accent -- someone from the Bronx does not sound like someone from Brooklyn. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with the deletion of this article I created. The thing is, I took the whole lot from the New York dialect article. At first I just deleted the section there, but my edits were undone by Bellagio99.
I didn't want to start an edit war, so I just made it into a new article. You might want to check with Bellagio99 though. --Soetermans (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose 1. This article has been a long standing section of the New York Dialect article (several years?), and no one has ever proposed deletion of the section before.

2. Hence, I was surprised when first the section was precipitously deleted and then when it was cut and moved to a new article -- without any discussion on the Talk page, as WP:CIVIL would suggest.

3. I continue to believe that it makes sense as part of New York Dialect, because it provides exemplars of notable people (in the public eye) who speak New York Dialect -- giving indications of pronunciation, rhythm and other subtleties. However, perhaps a cross-link to a separate article is ok.

4. There is a major factual mistake in Ecoleetage's account. The user thinks that Bronx speaks differently than Brooklyn. However, a good deal of scholarship by Prof William Labov and others that there is a single New York dialect, predominantly spoken by white New Yorkers. This is extensively discussed in the main New York Dialect article. I am surprised that User Ecoleetage did not read it, and I am surprised as a non-native speaker of English (from his User page), that he is so ready to make pronouncements about such matters. I would hesitate to do so about Spanish pronunciation. The fact that the User did make this mistake shows the need for the main article and the exemplifying list of notable speakers.

Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Response The only factual mistake here is the assumption that a non-native speaker cannot differentiate between accents. As for the single New York dialect, tell that to the people in Harlem, Bensonhurst, Upper East Side and City Island -- and listen to how each respective neighbourhood responds. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge a reasonably short and well referenced list may make sense within the New York Dialect article but, in no way does it need to be this large. I'm afraid there is a substantial difference in accent throughout the various boroughs which does make the idea of one New York accent difficult to believe. I'm pretty sure what most of the world would call a New York accent would actually be "Brooklyn" (just like most people assume that everyone from Maine drops their Rs and everyone from London is a Cockney. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Jasynnash2: Actually there is a detailed account in the New York Dialect article that it is not only a "Brooklyn" article, but covers the entire city and some surrounding areas, but not by all ethnic/racial groups. This is backed by systematic scholarly linguistic research, not just opinion. The list conforms to that criterion. I refer you to the main article for details. Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Shorten to only those supported by references, and merge back into the New York Dialect article -- The list is too long to be useful now, and not all those listed are supported by references. Should be restored to the NYD article in a smaller form. No reason to have this in a separate article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per ChrisRuvolo. I am the one who has been adding references to the list. I don't think we need a list of every famous person that has the accent. The ones that are referenced are the ones whom the article's writer felt was a great example of the accent or was a part of their notability or appeal. I will continue to search for references but I think the referenced ones make a good list already. Although, there is no such thing as a "Brooklyn accent" or "Bronx accent", there is such thing as a "North Jersey accent" as stated by the great William Labov and some of the listed people arguably speak with a Jersey accent. MrBlondNYC (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I support ChrisRuvolo's position exactly. One logical addition would be to admit in future only names referenced sources. Also, as the main article states no one has demonstrated any substantial differences within the dialect area beyond pronunciations of specific sites and perhaps local vocabulary. mnewmanqc (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One addendum to Mnewmanqc's thought: I would not be in super-hurry to delete non-referenced names. To pick several names at semi-random: In the public media, Fran Dressler, Carroll O'Connor (Archie Bunker) and Groucho Marx are widely-HEARD examples of NY accents. To delete them if they are not currently referenced would be foolish. I personally don't think the list is too long -- after all NYC is filled with public notables -- but if there is pruning, it should be with discretion. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fuhgettaboutit Merge per others Delete. FDR had a New York accent? "We have nuttin' to fear... excepp for fear itseff. Ya know?" Indiscriminate, unsourced, subjective, and probably wrong. Mandsford (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is sourced and I could add more sources for FDR but I thought one was enough. Here's another one: Maybe it's better than the one I added. FDR's accent was an upper-class New York accent that isn't really heard anymore and this accent - particularly Roosevelt's - is discussed in detail in the New York accent article. MrBlondNYC (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Gee, thanks for all the kind words - all I did was move the section of the article. Why? Because Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You tell me what the point is of having a list of "Notable speakers of a New York accent" is in a linguistic article.
That was my motivation of taking it out. What's done with isn't my problem. --Soetermans (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I did the same a while back to the hegemony article. There was a long list of "Hegemony in fiction", which I then moved to its own article - for the very same reason, political science has nothing to do with fictional universe and such. --Soetermans (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My bad. I thought the article was the result of an edit war. A long list of "persons with a New York accent" is silly, whether in a linguistics article or by itself. A short list might serve as an illustration in an article for the benefit of persons who don't know what a "New York accent" is supposed to sound like. I agree with you that there is nothing served by a merger. Mandsford (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. In response to Bellagio99's comment, just because something passes without comment in an article doesn't mean consensus necessarily supports it, nor that that section, removed from the original article and use separately, is viable. As noted above, this would create a rather bad precedent that could lead to similar lists. It is also unmaintainable and would need constant policing for WP:BLP issues and verification. While some of the names listed here have sources, many more do not. There are also people listed here whose inclusion could be debated - Telly Savalas, for example, is often said to have a Greek-American accent, not a New York accent. Groucho Marx's accent could be debated as being more Jewish in nature because of his ethnic background. And so on. Including a few examples in the dialect article are fine, but it simply does not work as a standalone. The list also muddies the waters by introducing fictional characters such as Archie Bunker into the mix. If WP:DONTGOTHERE existed I'd cite that. 23skidoo (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If its limited to those with good sources then it is not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Repeat of Merge. User:23skido's discussion shows why the list should be merged back in. The dialect article itself documents there is no such thing as a "Greek-American" (Savelas) or a "Jewish" accent (Groucho): they all speak New York Dialect. Thus the list and the dialect article are synergestic. I agree that all on the list should be notable, but notability isn't limited to TV stars. For example, some scholars often speak publicly in New York dialect. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of Greek Americans don't agree with you there. The same goes for American Jews. Most American Jews are from Ashkenazi descent (i.e., Central and Eastern Europe) so a common American Jewish dialect or accent is quite possible. See Jewish English languages or Yinglish.
Anyway, I believe the list is in need of good hack-and-slash editing. "People known for their New York accent" would be better, I guess. For example, right now Isaac Asimov (spelled wrong, BTW) is mentioned and while the New York dialect might be his dialect that in no way has anything to do with his work and why he is famous. The same goes for Jerry Seinfeld, Adam Horovitz, Donald Trump... and so on, and so on. --Soetermans (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Mijnheer Soetermans
Sorry, but all Ashkenazai American Jews don't have the same accent. Compare NY Jews with midwest with west coast with southern (where a T-shirt says "Shalom Y'all"). But this is not just my opinion: it is discussed in the main article New York Dialect and documented in the research literature to which the article refers. I wouldn't say that Frisians sound like folks from Den Bosch. Please stop riding a factually inaccurate horse;-). tot ziens Bellagio99 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Gezien de rest van je Engels weet je toch wat "possible" betekent? --Soetermans (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
For those who do not speak this silly old language: I didn't say that American Ashkenazi have the same dialect, I said it was possible. You, however, claimed that: "The dialect article itself documents there is no such thing as a "Greek-American" (Savelas) or a "Jewish" accent", which I question. Making the wrong conclusions out of my words is fine - but it won't help the discussion here. --Soetermans (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The potential is certainly there for an encyclopedic article, starting with notability drawn from sources like the fun AM New York article, combined with more serious studies that can take this from indiscriminate. An expert can discriminate between Jimmy Cagney and Jerry Seinfeld, or Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani, and perhaps some of these 51 footnotes say something about that. I hasten to say that "indiscriminate" and "unsourced" are two different concepts, fixing one doesn't directly fix the other. To the average American, I suppose, Professor Higgins and Eliza Doolittle would both have a "British accent", but that would not be "fair" to say. Mandsford (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Close the Discussion: Merge or Let Stand: Folks, there is clearly no consensus for deletion, and I suggest that we move on to consideration about whether the article should be left to stand on itself, or merged back in as a final section of New York Dialect. I believe the merger is more useful, as the main New York Dialect article discusses the reasoning behind inclusion and exclusion of names, and the list of names provides accessible exemplification. Now that we have pruned this article of some names, the list will not be so long. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Derrick Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was speedy tagged but I have declined. To me it seems not a question of notability because there is plenty of information to show that he is - but is it enough - I leave it to the wikipedia community to decide. PS the youtube links are worth watching. PPS I have no idea why there is a link to Cadiz at the bottom of the page. --VS 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Too soon. My personal bar for notability on AGT contestants is lower than many others. I personally think if people make it into the top ten or so, they are notable. But past AFDs on contestants has put the bar at around the finals. If the only claim to notability is the AGT appearences, then if the contestants have made the finals, their articles have generally remained. Not made the finals, their articles have been repeatedly deleted at AFD. As I said, I would personally keep more than that, but there's where precedent has been setting the bar. That all said, at this point we have only had the preliminaries. Until we get further into the competion, I would not agree that any of the contestants have notability yet, as long as AGT is the only source of their notability. So Delete, but without prejedice agsinst recreation later if he does get much further in the competition. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Reality-TV competitors, especially talent-show ones, are generally only notable if they make the finals in a major show or have notable careers later on. Way too soon to tell, in this case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I was the person who marked this article for speedy deletion. An appearance on Reality tv show itself does not make you notable for Knowledge (XXG); he does not appear to have notability as female impresantor aside from the fact that he appear AGT. If we include him, shouldn't all the people who make it Vagas have their own pages also? (And if they do the same thing they did last year, AGT might only show him for spilt second in the Las Vagas shows). If Knowledge (XXG) starts to include every person who has ever appeared on Reality TV, what keeps it from ballooning to any gameshow? However, if he makes it to the top 20 or top 10, then issue should be revisted. Jvsett (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources. It's either youtube, his myspace account, or the websites of where he works. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: He has only appeared in one episode, which almost always means that it is he is yet to be notable and guilty of WP:ONEEVENT. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Elkman 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deskjump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Article regarding this software fails WP:RS and is simply not notable. Pmedema (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- if kept this wants re-editing to remove the promotional sheen and place it into an objective stance. But I would need to be satisfied of notability and of source of reputable reviews. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maurice Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Articles main author placed a "hang-on" request (most probably in good faith) but the article has never been speedied - however on my reading (without an expertise on this type of sport and its various leagues) I have moved to AfD for further consultation. I offer no personal opinion at this time. --VS 11:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Plays in the CFL. Top level of football in Canada. IMHO should pass WP:ATHLETE. Article needs a little work but notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. "top level in a country" shouldn't include non-Canadians that are only playing in the CFL because they simply aren't better then the thousand players in the NFL, and couldn't get a job there. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually per WP:ATHLETE the standard is fully professional league. I don't think there's an arguement that the CFL is fully professional. I think it'd be an awful precedent to say that a professional athlete in Canada would be notable if he'd been born in Canada but since he was born in the US, not notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not too fond of the "professional league of any country" notability guideline. It has lots of holes. For example, If some Slovakians get together and decide to make a 4-team American football league where admission costs are some soda, they are the top professional league in Slovokia. Applying wp:athlete correctly, would make all the players in the league deserving of a Knowledge (XXG) article. I'm not saying that the CFL is analogous to my hypothetical, I'm just saying that this wp:athlete application can, at times, violate the spirit of Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy. If some dude can't get a job anywhere in the NFL and barely manages to get onto some CFL team, he is clearly not a notable football player. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand what you're saying even if i differ in opinion. My feelings, the CFL isn't the NFL, but it is the 2nd highest pro football league in the world. It's broadcast on canada's top cable sports network, and carried on US sports channels. I wouldn't argue if it was a group of weekend warriors playing hack football in some country where the public didn't know if the ball was blown up or stuffed. But this is quality sports league, a degree lower then the absolute best in the world. I see this more in line with a pro soccer player in the USA. No where near the quality of European soccer, but notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep professional athlete. Article could be improved a lot, but stubs are ok.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Took a closer look: regular player on the team that won the Grey Cup, started for 4 years at UConn in college... I'm okay with the article. it needs work, of course... but that's an editing issue, not a afd issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment So I've been putting in a little effort to clean up this article and add some good references. I gotta tell you, he is getting significant news coverage as an athlete in Canada, and not just in the Regina Leader-Post. He is expressing major leadership qualities for the team and that is being acknowledged by the news media. Check it out, please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" - enough said. But since enough is never enough, there are an awful lot of assumptions being made above. First, just because a U.S.-born player is playing in the CFL doesn't mean that they "can't get a job anywhere in the NFL". For many years and up until not too long ago, African-American quarterbacks couldn't get a sniff of starting jobs in the NFL no matter their skill level, and they came to Canada to establish themselves and have long and productive careers. It's also a logical fallacy that he isn't "better then the thousand players in the NFL" - he'd only need to not be better than the 32 starting middle linebackers and possibly their 32 backups to not be on an NFL roster, and even those are assumptions without a strong basis in fact. And how does starting 16 out of 18 games at a key position and being named to the year-end league all-star team equal "barely manages to get onto some CFL team". Are we seriously saying that Joe Theismann, Jeff Garcia, Rocket Ismail, and Warren Moon weren't notable until they joined the NFL, or that Damon Allen, the all-time professional career passing leader, should never be considered notable just because he never played in the NFL? That's quite a position to take. Besides, if those hypothetical Slovakians can get their league to the level where it's considered fully professional because they're being paid reasonable salaries for playing their games, and their games are carried on a national television network in Slovakia and are reported in-depth in major Slovakian newspapers, why shouldn't they be considered notable? Mlaffs (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Whatever opinions of whether a American CFLers are / start off as NFL rejects or not, the simple and unrefutable fact remains that they play at the top level of their/a sport, Canadian football, not to mention at a pro level, as per guidelines. Mayumashu (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — Plays in the CFL, which is the highest level of football available in Canada. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - CFL players are notable. matt91486 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Bevan Lawrence. Please do not modify it. The result was "Delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elkman 20:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Chest rockwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was speedied - but I declined. I have taken to AfD instead as article appears to fail WP:Band - this will give editors a chance to consider and clean up. --VS 11:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete non notable fails WP:BAND. BigDunc 11:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete, no evidence of external notability.. TravellingCari 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Branner Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

College dorm at Stanford University with no objective claims of notability and almost no coverage outside the university. • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I'm not affiliated with Stanford, but I still find and believe this article on a dorm at Stanford to be of note. Unless there's evidence of a gross hoax, I say keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge (to Stanford) -- per nomination; Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:SCH (as a side note, I'm surprised that dorms are not listed at WP:OUTCOMES#Education -- Ratarsed (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The only ways a college dorm can be notable is major historic or architectural importance or major newsworthy events of permanent interest. this has none of the above. I'm surprised it was contested. The internal college debate about just how wild the student life in a particular dorm may be, is not notable. If it attracted the national news media, then that might be something. They're nowhere near it. DGG (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was close with no recommendations. No one here is suggesting this article be deleted. Redirects/merges are an editorial decision and should be discussed appropriately. I will suggest, however, that the participants bear in mind an article can be redirected without the loss of information, as anything in the article history can easily be merged into the target article at a future date. Shereth 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Harlot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All the page contains is an etymology which doesn't give the etymology, and a list of pop-culture references, to items none of which have been considered significant enough to get their own entry. Is this really enough for an article? Redirect to Prostitute -- Jheald (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that; but to me it wasn't quite cut-and-dried. We will lose information if this page is turned into a redirect. That's why I wanted a wider opinion from the community, as to whether anyone thinks there is anything here worth keeping. Or anything that could be added to the page, that would justify its continued existence. Jheald (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole article has been corrupted to the point of irrelevancy. Not to long ago it noted that a harlot was originally a "sacred prostitute". All these references have been removed leaving a meaningless word. I say the previous article should be restored.Ewawer (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you post a link to the page version in question? --Explodicle (T/C) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the claim because it is unfounded. The word in English has never had this particular narrow specialisation of meaning. In the King James Bible the word is used for any kind of female prostitute . See also Gesenius on the Hebrew words zanah and kedasha. The root Hebrew meaning of the latter is "consecrated woman" -- ie temple prostitute, though in practise it came to be used more widely. The root Hebrew meaning of the former has no such narrow associations. But in English, in the KJV, the word Harlot is used to translate both, reflecting its use at the time (according to the OED) as a slightly less offensive alternative than the more direct "whore". -- Jheald (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per crystal ball and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Never free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL, all very vague about a book that may be coming out sometime this year Ged UK (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:NB; no references through Google search.Booglamay (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non notable book, WP:CRYSTAL, and the creator of the article is Kr&gibooks, so it is almost blatant advertising.--Michael White 11:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline at this time. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandcastles (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google search for article's subject: Sandcastles film
This article does not appear to be notable because nearly everyone involved is a redlink, and if it's notable (and has been out since 2004) it would have had an article ages ago. ...... Dendodge .. Talk 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC). Above is a Google search link to help you determine notability.

Google search for article's subject: Sandcastles Rymsza and Zamki z piasku Rymsza
This film's US distribution had been withheld until the completion of its companion film, Dustclouds. Please note that it had been released in Poland under the title "Zamki z piasku" and that it's aired on Polish and US TV ()
Its theatrical and DVD releases are set for 2008.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dweller (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nairsan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is about a film that does not appear meet the requirements for notability. A search for reliable sources about the film on Google News turns up a couple of articles that mention th film, but no substantial coverage. Additionally, as a future film, it does not yet appear to be filming in contravention of conventions for inclusion of future films. Their website has been down for some time. A google cache version would seem to indicate the flm is in pre-production. Finally, there are verifiability issues with the article content. There is no IMDB entry for the film. There is no mention of the film in the IMDB entries for Jacke Chan and Mohan Lal who are both identified as having parts in the film. Whpq (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Keegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, so tagged for over a year. He may or may not satisfy WP:MUSIC by having been a member of notable bands, but apparently there are no sources to verify the article's content. Huon (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Added what references I could find. --Richardrj 11:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say that notability is satisfied not only through his association with the Blue Aeroplanes and Robyn Hitchcock but also because his group Departure Lounge released two albums on the Bella Union label, which is unarguably a notable independent label. He therefore satisfies nos. 5 and 6 of the criteria for musicians listed at WP:MUSIC. As for sources, I have done what I could. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources (e.g. a Record of the Week in the UK Sunday Times) but very little of it is available online. --Richardrj 11:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball Delete among established editors or rather editors minus the possible meatpuppets. --JForget 01:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DruandMaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn music producers whose only claim to fame is that they produced a single for a nn artist. No RS for any of this. Mayalld (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete This article has been speedyed 4-5 times already and the user who creates it has been warned 2 times not to create it again or be blocked. --Twinzor (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete this is Maine the producer and there is no reason to delete this article it is great and has all the info about them and

my manger will add more info when it comes available —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainetoronto2000 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC) — Mainetoronto2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete per everyone above. Since someone claims he can get references, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and not speedy the close. I might change to a speedy if someone shows me links to the previous deletion discussions. --Explodicle (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE I want to add that if you please check the IP address's i'm sure that all of these DO NOT DELETE comments will be from differant ip's. Please check if you are questioning that. Thank you.
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETEDRU N MAINE ARE UNDER UNIVERSAL RECORDS AT HITSUNLTD... ARE KNOWN IN CANADA.. LEAVE IT ALONE PLESAE AND THANK YOU THERES OTHER PPL ON THIS WIKIPEDIA THAT SHOULDNT BE ON HERE STOP WASTING TIME WITH US.. THIS IS REDCILOUS THIS DRU SPEAKING AND IN A WEEK OUR WEBSITE IS GONNA BE UP TO EDIT SO STOP DOIN THIS ..PLEASE AND THNAK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drubearz (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE because i dont like drutoronto2000.. i want it to be drubeatz whats the problem? ..


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

The result was Speedy Deleted (by me) per G12 - Copyright Violation. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cats and Dogs (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable game, unpublished. Can't see an appropriate speedy category Ged UK (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Things get speedied on here all the time after AFD has started, especially for copyvio. Congrats on the boardgamegeek link by the way. :) Debate 木 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pop monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

To quote Closeapple: "cut-and-paste duplicate of other articles; unsustainable, subjective list with no criteria". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:Neologism with no cultural traction in real life. List of more or less self-titled people with no hope of objective criteria. Bulk of article is cut-and-paste of other Knowledge (XXG) articles (from the web rendering, not the wiki — UGH!) which is completely replaceable by 4 wikilinks in a bullet list. --Closeapple (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced, probably OR or synthesis. Huon (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete'. It would be interesting to construct this sort of pop royalty, but these titles really have no meaning beyond publicists' claims and there is no discipline behind this exercise. --Lockley (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Baseless, square-peg-into-round-hole attempt to shoehorn the jazz royalty concept into pop music where it clearly does not fit. Also unsourced and fork-based; also, "King of Pop" for MJ is the only one of these with even vaguely regular application. (Who has ever described Justin Timberlake as "the Prince of pop?" Especially since the role is already taken.) tomasz. 14:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Merge to McDonald's advertising (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

McDonald's Menu Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable promotional campaign from the 1970. The article has no citations (originally noted in September 2007), and is primarily a collection of the lyrics. Also, the external link is a spam link. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. Without getting into the notability, a couple of corrections:
    1. The campaign is from the late 80s. The song from the 70s is different.
    2. The external link is clearly not spam.
    3. It is not "primarily" a collection of lyrics. More than half of the article is intro/background prose.
    4. Lack of citations is not a criterion for deletion. But I've added one for the lyrics anyway. It was easy to find, and I'm sure there are more (but it's 2:00am where I am and I'm going to sleep).
The content is certainly verifiable. Whether it's notable or not is, of course, open to debate. As the original author (some years ago) I think I'd still say it is. I wouldn't cry if it was deleted, but I have yet to see a good argument against it. Kafziel 09:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the main changes have been to (i) insert a fairly lightweight source (Do You Remember TV? The Book That Takes You Back) and remove the lyrics. I don't think that this materially affects establishing the notability of the topic. HrafnStalk 10:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy molé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable comic. Prod was removed, and some claims added, but I can't find any reliable independent sources about the comic. There are no Google News results, and only 22 Google hits in total, of which some dozen are about the comic. The comic exists and is published in one small newspaper, but hasn't been remarked upon by reliable sources independent of the author or the publishers. Fram (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete. --VS 12:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Christal Love Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Her only notability seems to be that she's the granddaughter of Johnny Carson. The article's main thrust was that she had no contact with him and was cut off from his inheritance. I've taken all that out as it was unsourced as per WP:BLP, which doesn't leave us with much. Ged UK (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sleeper film 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I originally marked for speedy as a hoax, however the author has added links. Here's the problem...none of the people listed are mentioned anywhere as being involved in the project...in fact Kym Jackson is in the middle of three other projects at this time and this still isn't mentioned. It appears to be a really elaborate hoax with a fantastic web site...even if it's not a hoax it still fails WP:V and WP:N and WP:Crystal. No objection to recreation if it's ever released and reviewed by a major news outlet. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete, as unverifiable from reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Legend of McCoy Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoaxed pseudo-legend, apparently placed on Knowledge (XXG) to substantiate the premise of a Blair Witch-like independent film project. The project has a promotional site here, and this notice on a national casting call site makes it clear that the premise is fictional:

"The film opens as we visit the graveyard where your great-great-great-great grandfather Johnny McCoy is buried (we'll use local graveyards & the Malibu Canyon)...You'll get to have fun with a full range on this project."

In short, this is a fine nesting cupset of fiction: neither the facts of the story, the "legend" about them, the documentary about the legend or the feature film about the making of the documentary appear to exist. P L E A T H E R talk 06:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus; the article has been heavily edited and the original reasons for deletion do not seem to apply to most of the new content.  Sandstein  20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexism against men in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is full of NPOV problems. For one, it fails WP:V in most aspects. No citations for the majority. Not an encyclopedic article. Delete or possible merge if anything out there fits. Undeath (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment : I have left a message on the talk page rather than continue this discussion here. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment : I've been doing a little editing on the article (i'm no expert on the subject, is just me and google). Hope people will see that it is definitly improvable to a keep standard.
Would people here agree that the Women in India article is just a NPOV? Why not?Yobmod (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have anything to discuss about Women in India, please do so on that article's talk page, not here. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No.Yobmod (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How is the subject valid? It seriously just looks like a rant against women. The entire article is a problem. Undeath (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the new version? Hardly against women.Yobmod (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The time of my post and the time of that rewrite are two different times. Try to keep that in mind. Undeath (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That's why it was a question :-). But you still didn't say if your comment was about the new version (since addition of dowry/eve teasing/violence/education/selective abortion sections on 27th June)Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

263.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

SchmuckyTheCat listed this for speedy deletion, but I removed that due to it seeming that 263.net is very well known, particularly for its earlier years and reputation for being responsible for a lot of spam. Google news shows the following results , web search yields the following results; those are in English only, perhaps Chinese language searches will provide more results; this one needs more input from the community at large, seeing as it is the only entity listed in Category:Internet service providers of China, surely there must be some notable ISPs in China, is this one? Россавиа 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment If, by proxy, this is my nomination, I'll withdraw it if someone can work some sources and text into the article to get it expanded and explain its importance. As it stands the article does not use sources and has no major edits in three years. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Bring da Ruckus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Shame on a Nigga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
Clan In Da Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
Wu-Tang: 7th Chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
Da Mystery of Chessboxin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
Wu-Tang Clan Ain't Nuthing ta F' Wit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

:Method Man (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) Cancel this one, as User:JuJube said; see Billboard charts

Yes, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) is one of the greatest hip hop albums ever, but not every song that hasn't been released is notable. They fail WP:MUSIC#Songs. I'm nominating for deletion the following articles:

  1. Bring da Ruckus
  2. Shame on a Nigga
  3. Clan In Da Front
  4. Wu-Tang: 7th Chamber
  5. Da Mystery of Chessboxin'
  6. Wu-Tang Clan Ain't Nuthing ta F' Wit

#Method Man (song) Do U(knome)? |or no · 04:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete - Kevin (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Nick Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability. Orphaned article. IndulgentReader (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Redirect. Although there are more opinions leaning toward deletion, I don't see the harm in keeping this as a search term. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spike Surplus Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable charitable organisation, of seemingly limited influence. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was redirect to Libertarian Party state affiliate, which is probably the most consensual outcome. The (very meagre) content is already there. This does not prejudice against a WP:SS spinoff should size considerations ever require one.  Sandstein  20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Party of Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable franchise (chapter) of national org, per WP:ORG. • Freechild'sup? 03:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Other stuff exists. If any of those lack notability, we should delete them too. --Explodicle (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's possible that some of the Libertarian state parties might be notable and others not; the party is more successful in some states than in others. Some of the state parties might have received significant coverage in their home states. At this point, I don't know which ones are notable and which ones are not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There are also likely a lot of offline sources that we don't have access to (e.g. newsletters, local newspapers that don't post their content online). The best thing might be to redirect, while keeping an eye on http://www.lpedia.org/Libertarian_Party_of_Nebraska and the google results once in awhile to see if any new verifiable material emerges that would merit a separate article. I think that for niche subjects, we rely on interested parties seeking to promote their organizations to post all the pertinent content, sources, etc. needed to create an standalone article. And there is a rough correlation between notable topics and the presence of such actively interested parties, but sometimes one exists without the other; and in this case, it appears we are missing the latter. As for why said actively interested person didn't show up, we can only speculate. There are some cases where people just don't feel like editing Knowledge (XXG) to put their organization's stuff on here, whether because they don't feel like it, or they've had bad experiences with Knowledge (XXG) in the past, etc. There are only a few thousand extremely active Wikipedians, and what are the chances that one of them will happen to be sufficiently familiar with the Libertarian Party of Nebraska to write an article about it? In this case, the roll of the dice happened to land on the side of not having such an individual here. The situation is regrettable, but it is what it is. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Knowledge of the subject is not keeping this article from existing on WP. The fact of the matter, which I discuss below, is that the topic of the article simply is not notable enough for inclusion. There could be dozens of newsletters within the chapter, hundreds of articles within the chapter, and thousands of members - but until that is noted by a reliable source, namely someone outside of the chapter, this is simply not a notable enough topic to include on WP. • Freechild'sup? 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, and I am saying that reliable sources outside of the chapter could very well (and probably do) exist that are offline. That is not really intended to affect the outcome of the AFD, but simply as commentary on the roots of systemic bias, which might inform future discussions on the notability of this topic (since it quite possibly could come up again). Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note. I am a self-professed Nebraska-booster and I have written dozens of articles about Nebraska in general. However, I do take exception to article about topics that are not notable enough to warrant encyclopedic entries. The simple fact of the matter is that the Libertarian Party in Nebraska is just not notable, and after a scan of multiple reliable sources I cannot locate any article, website, or other third party source that implies the party matters in the state, or nationally. This article, and likely many others it is photocopied from/to, should be deleted. That's why I nominated it. • Freechild'sup? 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep All other franchises of the party have articles, this should too. Don't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS me, there's a template down there and uniformity is needed in an encyclopedia.--Serviam (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Also, article now fully complies with the notability guidelines, so all thosecomments above that say it doesn't are now irrelevant.--Serviam (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You realize what happened, though, right? Someone decided that we should have a set of articles on all the LP state affiliates in the country, and figured, "Eh, rather than create a unique article on each one (which would involve a lot of duplication of typing), let me take this spreadsheet of the names of state chairs and generate wiki pages for each one. Later I or someone else can expand them." I think that's what collaborative editing and eventualism are all about - you start out with stubs and over time they expand. We should not presume the other affiliates with stub articles to be non-notable just because not much evidence of this chapter's activity is turning up on the web. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that guideline is descriptive, not prescriptive, and let me mention again that it is only a guideline. In the interest of uniformity and general completeness, these articles should be kept. There are numerous reliable sources out there, as this prooves, just nobody has bothered to include them, and I can't atm because I'm working on another article. You would also do well to re-read Aldrich's comment, you're reply doesn't seem to indicate that you understood it.--Serviam (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am aware that we can make exceptions to the guidelines, but don't think that the "uniformity and completeness" philosophy that apparently has no community consensus is reason enough to ignore them. A Google search proves nothing unless we can establish that some of those hits are valid (see below). I understand Aldrich's comments, but agree more with the larger consensus reflected in the guidelines than I agree with him. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added in reliable, third party references for all points of information in the article, so it now meets WP:N completely and that's an invalid reason to delete. I urge all of you people who said delete above to recosider.--Serviam (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Good call, I think this is a fair compromise. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete as not asserting notability. If you want a copy of this article to include information in the FreeDOS article, let me know. Alex Muller 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FreeDOS-32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, no reason given. Unreleased fork of open-source software (FreeDOS); being open source, anyone can simply copy the original code and start a new project claiming that significant improvements are underway. This fork has no sources and no notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:N, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — Not to poke fun at you Ham, but your comment about it's lack of notability because "anyone can simply copy the original code and start a new project claiming that significant improvements are underway" reminds me a lot of Knowledge (XXG). Hehehe... Moving on then: The article is well written; concise, lucid, and understandable to someone who doesn't deal with a lot of open source programs. As for the notability, I would say this article is notable because it appears to be making quite a few differences between it and the original FreeDOS("such as a 32-bit, flat memory-model, optimized Input/Output, support for many file systems, compatibility layers and support for modern standards, amongst others"). Note: I would think that this kind of notability would be rare because as said earlier, it is a variant of an open source program. But! that brings me to my next point: "no reliabe sources" -Masterpiece200. I wholeheartedly disagree sir; Google brings up quite a few hits, including the original, unconnected FreeDOS site, a small forum dedicated to it's history and progress (I know forums are not a legit source, but this is an open source project, and the forum yields posts about the progress of the project from the programmers), and whatever this site is. As for the site listed on the article, I will admit that it might not be as reliable as others, because it is not a secondary source. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Any site can copy Knowledge (XXG), which does not make them notable for it. Making (or more accurately, claiming to be making) changes to a work is not a tenet of notability. Notability requires significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Suggesting that the original FreeDOS is "unconnected" is good for a chuckle, but otherwise I'd assume that the interest of FreeDOS's author is not independent of the fact that he created the original (not that a simple news blurb would qualify as coverage anyway). As you admit, forums, primary sources, and certainly "whatever" sites (btw, what it is, is just a search portal) are not legitimate to establish notability. That leaves us with no reliable secondary sources for the topic, which is the working definition of non-notability. The article is a stub, so I'm not sure what kind of grading scale you are using to call it well-written, other than perhaps to suggest that it isn't patent nonsense, which I agree with, but which does not solve the issue of notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well written in the sense that is 1) not patent nonsense and 2) clear. To me, the article makes sense. Thanks for the correction for the sources, it is much appreciated. But, I'm sure this article deserves a place, and I think I can argue you on the notability factor; wouldn't having obtuse differences from the original make it notable in that it is a variant of an item that is notable? (or does that fall under "notability is not inherited"?) And again, even if it doesn't get it's own article, could at least get a merge with the original FreeDOS article? Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ROM-DOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion or evidence of notability. Reads like an advertisement. Contested prod from anon SPA stating "As an x86 DOS this product is inherently notable", which I believe is a complete fabrication. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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


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

The result was Delete on the balance of it all. The articles provided as references prove that he exists, has written some articles, and is no longer employed by the NY Press. There is nothing other than tangential mentions, and as has been pointed out, they do not confer notability. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Cabal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Was deleted as a prod but then hostilely contested a while after deletion. Notability not established per WP:CREATIVE. There are thousands of journalists, not all of them are notable - He's hardly a Sy Hersh. There is no indication that this one is particularly more notable than any other. Ave Caesar (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep Such childishness. It is good knowledge and Alan Cabal is someone I would like to know more about. Can we know more about him? This is an Article for Expansion.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack aside, please note that WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for keeping an article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep and expand— He seems "pretty fucking notable." And I'm not even Alan Cabal! In all seriousness now, he seems notable, and with some more citations and refs, the article will be a pretty decent stub. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep the brutal deletionist policy that has aflicted certain articles such as Alan Cabal or Murder of Joseph Didier must be brought to a stop NOW. Smith Jones (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability may be established via independent and reliable sources. Just being a widely published freelance writer isn't enough (see the back-and-forth about Cyrus Farivar), until we have some standards saying how journalists are notable for their writing alone, we should have some sources that are actually about them. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dhartung - notability is not established in the current single reference (indeed there are no valid citations or references as third party) and the "bibliography" (hardly well headed!) does nothing to assist. --VS 04:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed opinion to keep - references found by SilkTork (I have commented also on article talk page) provide enough notability for article to be kept. Good work SilkTork!--VS 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If only we could delete deletionists. If references aren't used, add them, but don't use their absence as proof against notability. His position on freedom of speech is the interesting thing to note here. You do realize without this article on Alan Cabal there isn't any real information about him on the internet. This article is a real asset. Someone needs to find some interesting sources about him so that this article can be shored up. Under no circumstances should we be removing this article. I love these idiotic arguments.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I would like to rat out Ave Caesar and point out that he removed this line from the gonzo journalism article on June 1, 2008: "Other writers who have worked in "gonzo" mode include Jordan Kobos, Tom Luffman, and Alan Cabal." Annihilate Cabal's existence! Basically, Alan Cabal is well-known as a gonzo journalist and there is a systematic effort to remove his name from Knowledge (XXG), even though his name has been non-systematically added to this site. Systematic effort by one Ave Caesar. Look Ave, maybe you have a gripe against Alan Cabal for something he has done, someone he has supported outside of Knowledge (XXG), and yes, it is a brilliant idea to remove his entry from Knowledge (XXG) then, because you'll diminish his notability over time (notability does come somewhat with having a Knowledge (XXG) entry), but just stop. You've been found out and the game is up.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment to Manhattan Samurai You have your argument about face and wrong side up and your diatribe is further flawed because rather than spend the time "walking the talk" and putting in the time to save the article which you have so much regard for, by finding these elusive references - you feel the need to resort to personal attacks here (and it appears at many places where you do not agree with the alternative message). There really is no need for that sort of behaviour - please just try and understand - third party references are the staple of this wikipedia and their presence is proof of notability.--VS 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have contacted the author about such issues (his most recent email address is ) and you should too as an interesting experiment. I tried to find some references and it wasn't easy, but there is a lot of "talk" about him, and so the references are out there. Maybe they are in the archives of several newspapers. The internet is a turd for research, so this will take time. Hopefully solutions are forthcoming.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete. Alan Cabal is one of those interesting cases in that he is quoted by blogs and forums, and appears to have a modest but well established internet presence. I have argued previously that we should allow articles on topics or people in which there is considerable coverage in non-formal sources such as blogs and forums, but there is no consensus for that. Under current guidelines this article fails WP:CREATIVE. If people wish to know who Alan Cabal is (and I can see that people would, given the amount of times his articles are mentioned) they'll just have to Google and pick up the remains of this article on a Knowledge (XXG) mirror. Seems totally daft to me, but that is the current consensus. SilkTork * 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. What am I doing! Consensus develops from discussions on AfD - the guidelines reflect what happens here. If enough people show that they want articles on people like Alan Cabal and are prepared to accept multiple internet mentions, then that will get written into the guidelines. Keep for gawds sake. Let's be sensible about it, and not get bogged down into perpetuating some guidelines that are not working! SilkTork * 07:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines are affected by consensus, yes. However, they are constrained by policy. For instance, blogs are not reliable sources and cannot be used to establish notability. The notability standards, which have resisted far greater challenges than this in the past, consistently maintain that someone is not notable simply because they are prolific but because something they produce had a profound impact. Quality over quantity. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - continue the brutal deletionist policy of removing anything without reliable sources. This one is referenced to what looks like a Knowledge (XXG) mirror?! Huon (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by mirror??? The word mirror does not appear even once on the article or tis atlk page. your reasoning appear spurious. Smith Jones (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - by "mirror" I mean that this site, the article's main reference, seems to take its content from Knowledge (XXG) itself, probably from an older version of the same article. See the "" line. Huon (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • isnt it possible that that other article devleoped its own article on Alan Cabal independently of wikipedia? Are we all so arrogant that we cannot bleive that other wikis can come up with their own researchw ithout stealing wholesale from our hard work? Smith Jones (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't assume anything, I read the source. The "" line is pretty explicit, isn't it? Actually that source seems not to be a true mirror (or a Wiki), but some sort of search engine - under "Results summary" it gives several headings, with "Knowledge (XXG)" the only one where anything was found. Huon (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not much of a claim to notability. Zero reliable sources cited in article. Search for any significant coverage of him didn't find any.--Michig (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From the author after I sent him an email saying "We don't know too much about you, and frankly we're not up to doing the research to find the maybe half a dozen newspaper articles (are there any books?) that discuss you, so we're hoping you can maybe point us in the right direction.":

Whoa! Who the Hell am I? I hope this isn't getting too vicious.

I've got several dozen articles in the "archives" of www.nypress.com, starting HERE:



Christ, that's a long URL. I hope it works. If it doesn't, just go to www.nypress.com. Under "archive" you'll see a search box. Enter "Alan Cabal" (in quotes), go for "oldest first."

I'm still doing book reviews for High Times, but they don't post those on the web. Calling a spade a spade has its cost vis-a-vis subjects like Israel and Ernst Zundel, and I've paid it, happily. I never set out to be any kind of "journalist", it happened by accident. Given a voice, I will state the truth as I see it, and I did.

Anyway, I'm not a journalist, I'm a polemicist. Fucking Cassandra is what I am, heh. I prefer setting up and tearing down live spectacles, like rock shows and circuses. That line of work staves off my well-deserved heart attack.

Thanks to you, and all best wishes to my allies and friends. May my enemies' poo come to life and kiss them on the lips.

Best,

Alan Cabal

The thing to do is find the article Mr. Cabal wrote about Ernst Zundel and use that as a reference. If possible, even find some "talk" resulting from the article.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Only articles about Alan Cabal are relevant with regard to notability. It seems he couldn't even suggest where to look for any.--Michig (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to above Huon's comment. FIne, even if I granted that your assumptions were correct, even if I set aside that source, there are still TWO other sources including but not liited to this one here which indicate notaibility beyond a reasonable conception of design. Smith Jones (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources demonstrating notability cited in the article. See Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah right. Look at these srouces:

These sources are strong enough to support an entire article, and these are just the ones I found on a google search of Alan cabal. I am sure that there are innumerable more searches on the Internet as well as in books, newspapers, etc. Smith Jones (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No they're not strong enough. Some of them are written by Cabal, others only briefly mention him. You're not seriously suggesting Knowledge (XXG) be used as a source for a Knowledge (XXG) article? Please make an effort to read and understand the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines before commenting further.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand all of the wp policies prefectly. I admit that I overreached on the wikipedia source but I have seen articles written by a subject as a source for learning about the articles as per WP:BLP -- that's Knowledge (XXG): Biography of Living Persons, a policy that I hope you are familiar with before you go after my sources. By the way, thse "brief" mentions contain quite a bit of information. Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles written by the subject of an article are valid as evidence of what they've written. For notability purposes, however, significant coverage from independent reliable sources are required. Notability is the issue here.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
They are also valid as evidence that they are NOTABLE, which is thepoint of this AFD correct me from if I am wrong. By the fact alone that this writer, in his fame, has been published in multiple multinational media sources, all of whom are apparently notable New York Press, CounterPunch enough for wikipedia proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Alan Cabal is prominent, notable and chiclet. Smith Jones (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't see this satisfying WP:N. If his writing had prompted other people to devote significant coverage to Alan Cabal, that would be a different matter. --Michig (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Michig. Notability is established by mentions in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of the sources given by Smith Jones satisfy WP:RS. The one coming closest is the Institute for Historical Review one, but that institute is anything but scholarly, and its journal is not peer-reviewed. Huon (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, to be published in three high-circulation magazines establishes notability as far as I am concerned. The less formal connaisance on the net while not consensus certainly in my view lends weigh to the keep argument. Mallanox 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just put in three references to the Zündel article that Cabal wrote. What we have here is a writer who has achieved some modest attention ("notability" or "notoriety" I'm not sure which) through his article on Zündel. The verifiability of that attention is mainly the blogs themselves - however we now also have the report on David Wyman's Wyman Institute, a report on the Institute for Historical Review's website of the Jeff Rense show on Cabal's article, and a letter from Ernst Zündel himself quoted on the Adelaide Institute's website. I'm not comfortable with the politics of some of those sources, nor - to be honest - their general reliability - but they certainly serve the purpose here of verifying that Cabal has sufficient notability for a Knowledge (XXG) article. SilkTork * 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see why he should be considered more notable than the average journalist. The article doesn't provide one reliable source that gives him any coverage, thus falling way short of the wp:bio notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out, not confrontationally but informatively, that most of Cabal's notability lies in the fact that he writes gonzo. He creates a shitstorm here and there and writes often provocatively. So in the interest of someone notably gonzo Cabal stands out. Basically if you're interested in gonzo, and Knowledge (XXG) is, then you'd be interested in Cabal.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I like both gonzo and Cabal. However, I don't let what I like get in the way of correctly applying Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policies. Gonzo is notable, so there's a Knowledge (XXG) article about gonzo. But just because gonzo is notable that doesn't mean that every gonzo journalist is notable as well. Baseball is notable, but that doesn't mean that every baseball journalist is notable. For a journalist to be notable, for Knowledge (XXG) purposes, the journalist must have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. This notability standard has not been met by Mr. Cabal. I have nothing against mentioning Mr. Cabal briefly at gonzo journalism.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the keep argument here is nothing more than a textbook case of WP:ILIKEIT. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhiel, the even more spurious delete argument is based entirely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT topped with a healthy fervor of deletionism, WP:SURMOUNTABLEPROBLEM and WP:JNN. Nice try :D. Smith Jones (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, it's based on the fact that there are absolutely no reliable sources establishing notability. All journalists are prolific that doesn't equate to notability. Notability would require this individual to have made a profound contribution to his field or to society that is recognized by his peers. This guy doesn't even classify as a journalist so much as he does an op-ed writer. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
So you know that your argument is not spuruious, but you refuse to admit that our arguments make sense. Thats really WP:NPOV of you. Have you read the WP policy WP:JNN???? Smith Jones (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV refers to article content. JNN pertains to unsubstantiated claims that something isn't notable. WP:VERIFY clearly argues that the burden of evidence rests with the person who is attempting to claim notability. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC
So sorry :D, but wikilawyering wont strengthen the deletionist case. Essentially what we are required to do is establish that this article is notable, which is what we are doing. Already User:Manhattan Samurai is in the process of procuding a majorly controversial article written by Alan Cabal re: the Ernst Zundel persecutions and we have seen several instances of Cabal's prominent contributions to notable journalistic media vis a vis New York Press, CounterPunch, etc. The deltionists have simply insisted that these sources do not meet WP:N without actualy giving solid policy-related reasons right now. Smith Jones (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Zundel article forthcoming I contacted CounterPunch and one of their editors-in-chief, Alexander Cockburn, has agreed that the controversial article, "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel", should be made available on their web site and he will do so within a week or two. So this article is coming around. It is starting to look pretty sharp.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles written by Mr. Cabal don't add anything. To establish notability, we need articles written by others about Mr. Cabal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't add anything to your ridiculous world view in which you "like both gonzo and Cabal" but are so warped by Wiki policy pages that you can't come around to keeping this useful article. It does add a link to an interesting article about freedom of speech, I believe. I'm looking forward to reading it. And who is this idiot below talking about needing independent sources? There's several in the article. What do you think Knowledge (XXG) is? It is a place to offer up information about people like Alan Cabal! There I've told you. Now fall in line.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks to Knowledge (XXG)'s anonymity, your formidable username does scare me into falling in line :-). You should know, every once in a while, usually during a nasty afd debate (like this one), I think that maybe it's just better that Knowledge (XXG) totally scrap its notability policy, and everything that anyone finds interesting should be allowed into Knowledge (XXG). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to come after you with my Katana if that's what you're thinking. But let's be honest, there are people that are going to come to Knowledge (XXG) and want to look up Alan Cabal. He's a different kind of writer with a notable history and just because we don't have the perfect article today doesn't mean that day isn't coming.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Do you agree that everything that anybody finds interesting (even it's true and sourced) does not deserve automatic entry into Knowledge (XXG)? If you do agree, and admit that Knowledge (XXG) should have some sort of notability pollicy, you shouldn't be that bothered by the fact that some people won't find information on Alan Cabal on Knowledge (XXG). There's an overarching policy concern here that trumps the missing Alan Cabal information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. What is interesting here, is that people know Cabal (he has a significant readership having written regularly for significant publications, he is mentioned on the internet, radio shows, and by notable individuals and organisations) and yet there is quibbling about his "notability" because the guidelines we have written ourselves have raised the bar too high. If you are an athlete you need only have been paid to perform. Most of the individuals on this list: Tampa Bay Rays all-time roster have far fewer verifying sources, yet they are on our project because we have decided that "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis" are notable, while creative writers need to be "regarded as an important figure or widely cited by their peers or successors." - a much more difficult and somewhat subjective criteria. A baseball player plays one game, gets an article. A writer writes professionally for several years (and has the substantial proof of that), creates something of a stir in which an article he has written gets mentioned in several places (with his name included in the mentions, because he has a reputation), and we are quibbling because he doesn't quite meet out notability criteria. Well, we should be looking at our notability criteria. We certainly want to keep out non-notable bloggers, but a professional writer who creates some interest is likely to prompt a reader to turn to a reliable source (Knowledge (XXG)) for more information, and we should be providing that information. Alan Cabal's name is known - he is mentioned in John Strausbaugh's book Rock 'Til You Drop. It's not that Alan Cabal is not known, it's that our guidelines are written to exclude the ordinary blogger, and have unfortunately caught him in their net as well. I'm not particularly interested in Alan Cabal, but I am interested in this AfD setting a consensus to adjust our criteria to include known professional writers whose name is mentioned in multiple sources. SilkTork * 07:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's unfair that every player on the Tampa Bay Rays all-time roster is considered notable, when plainly, Alan Cabal is more notable then some of the listed players. But baseball players are lucky in a way, because in baseball a fine line can be drawn - Major Leages is notable, non-Majors is unnotable. This fine line minimizes all sorts of notability discussions. Indeed, rarely will you find an afd debate on a baseball player. Unfortunatly, there's no fine line that can be drawn for writers, thus requiring a case-by-case analysis of whethere the wp:bio requirements are met. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - while I appreciate SilkTork's attempts at finding sources, I still feel there's too little. We can't even verify the basics. We don't have a date of birth or anything on his background (education, for example). We have a 2005 New York Press article about the impending death of the Pope, but no source linking that article to Cabal or the end of his employment. We don't have any secondary source for his High Times book reviews. A single line on a private website is blown up into an entire paragraph. An Alan Cabal is mentioned in a book on rock music; there's not even enough context to make sure it's the same Alan Cabal. His CounterPunch article has been mentioned by several more or less reliable sources. But to me he looks at most like a case of WP:BLP1E - maybe a passing mention in the Ernst Zündel article would be more appropriate? Though honestly I doubt that article would get better by mentioning Cabal. Huon (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is also CounterPunch itself. Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability does say: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." When talking about someone who has made an impact on the internet, then internet sources are appropriate. The policy allows the article, what we are quibbling over is the notability guidelines - and these guidelines vary according to the circumstances. My point here is not that we shouldn't be having the less than notable baseball players, but that in drawing up the guidelines to excludes bloggers we shouldn't also be excluding professional writers who have been writing regularly in a notable publication. SilkTork * 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Silktork's baseball player argument. the_ed17 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep seconding the kepe vote. Only one Keep or Delete comment per editor please Smith Jones--VS 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Proving that there are articles out there, written by a journalist, doesn't make the journalist notable, it simply proves s/he exists. According to the notability guidelines, the subject of this article simply fails. For creative professionals, the guidelines require that: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. There's just no evidence of this. Even the article doesn't claim or explain the subject's notability. It just reads like anyone's bio or CV. I can see this is an emotional subject for a lot of people out there, but I've got no axe to grind. The bottom line is, evidence of existence isn't evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin46 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. Austin46 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment FTLOG no-one is saying h e is nodable that just beause he exists. The argument we ave rendreerd states merely that Cabal has contributed famous and notable contribtuions which have sparked controversy (specifically the Zundel holocaust review. Smith Jones (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Only sources seem to be based on a throwaway comment by the artists. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

T-Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
He Rap, He Sing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Added album)

T-Pain and Lil Wayne did mention about collaborating an album together but that's all that was said. No further sources claiming an album and the "Got Money" single was a Lil Wayne single, not as a duo. WP:CRYSTAL (not much else is said) Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Todd Scalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted Tim (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, maybe speedy. Asserts notability - but this is more of a resume than an article about somebody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, a model with a nice gig, but not clearly notable via reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the information here is factual and the Todd Scalia page is a work in progress. I actually set up the page after meeting Todd at the Los Angeles Film Festival last weekend. He was there for the premiere of an indie film he starred in, Loss Prevention, produced by Josh Krohn. I gleaned the information on this page from him about his background and proceeded to set up a page. I apologize that I am a new Wiki user, and have been researching how to properly set up a Wiki page. I will be editing and citing sources over the next couple days, and I would appreciate if judgements could be held until I can get the page worked out. Thank you. --Obsurfcat —Preceding comment was added at 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • — Obsurfcat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment Hi Obsurfcat and welcome to Knowledge (XXG). The issue here isn't whether your info is factual or "good enough" - the page is definitely well-written and encyclopedic in tone, which is great! Keep up the good work. The only issue and the reason I prodded the article is because regardless of article quality I don't think the subject individual meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. But that's why we have this debate medium setup :) Tim (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Response Thanks for the welcome Tim. I'd like to highlight the reasons Scalia is notable for Knowledge (XXG). First, he was an accomplished musician and lead vocalist for an incredibly popular college band in Boston (see links to articles re. Redshift 6 on the page). Second, Scalia launched a career as an international supermodel by becoming the front man for the 2004 Spring A&F campaign, and became recognizable by millions after being seen on billboards and shopping bags worldwide. I recognized him immediately when I met him at the LA Film Festival. He went on to shoot major print ads for the designers mentioned on the page, and did numerous runway shows in Europe. See link for examples of his modeling work. Third, Scalia is currently an amazing actor who is being seen in some indie films now and is creating quite a bit of interest as a rising star in Hollywood. After the first film I saw him in, my first thought was, "the next Brad Pitt." He was amazing. I hope this helps highlight notability. I will continue working to improve the page to clarify these items. --Obsurfcat —Preceding comment was added at 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I apologize in advance if this doesn't come through properly. I tried to read the instructions carefully and don't mean to disrupt your forum in any way. I also feel bad because I think the photo of Todd on the Time's Square billboard in New York that I tried to upload was labeled incorrectly on my part and caused a problem. Knowledge (XXG) is so well done and I'm sorry for causing any problems here. That being said, I would agree with the gentleman above who would like to keep the article. I have gotten to know Mr. Scalia well over the last several years as we've worked on some great motion pictres. I was pleased to see his entry here and feel bad that my actions might have cause the article to be considered for deletion. If you don't know him now, you will. His IMDB (internet movie database) profile is currently being process (this can take a month or more sometimes) and his credits will be impressive. Since I'm very active in production in Hollywood I know of one film specifically that is being directed by an individual as well known as Martin Scorcese, and Todd will be playing the lead role. It would be a shame to the Knowledge (XXG) community if his article were not included. I genuinely mean that. As a forum for accurate, community generated encyclopedic material, I think this article will be a quality piece that will be enjoyed by your readers. I appreciate the opportunity for me to express my support in favor of "no deletion" and wanted to commend the other people that voiced their opinion on their willingness to engage in civil debate. Mr. Scalia is a very impressive young man and he is very notable on a number of fronts. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion. Kind regards, Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.23.42 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepComment, I forgot to mention that after reviewing many other Knowledge (XXG) articles, the references and links supplied by whoever put together that Scalia page, are more substantive than many others I saw. Also I'm so glad it's mentioned that he's related to Robert Taylor! When I met Todd's grandfather, 85 yr old Frank Rossi, he showed me copies of some incredible photos of he and Taylor at the family ranch in Bishop, CA as well as priceless Navy photos. Congrats to the members of Knowledge (XXG) for having such incredible information! I was very impressed! I will stop talking now for now and hope to check in a few days from now to see what's been decided. I sincerely hope it remains. Regards, Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.23.42 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, Oops! Sorry Dennis! You're right I meant to say comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.23.42 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepComment. Todd Scalia is VERY notable. spearheading the largest and most controversial fashion campaign in the world should suffice even if he wasn't a rising star in major film circuits. that's my two cents anyway. i thought he should have been a wikipedia article years ago. thanks for listening anyway! cya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.23.42 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has not received significant coverage in secondary sources, thus not meeting the wp:bio notability standard.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I have made some changes to the Todd Scalia site and have linked to references clearly showing Scalia to be a notable figure, not in the least because of his involvement in the controversial Abercrombie magazine. I would submit to Brewcrewer that Scalia does indeed meet the wp:bio notability standard. I have direct links on the page to websites where Scalia is mentioned in news articles regarding his band, as well as modeling agency websites depicting images clearly showing his print work for major clothing designers. I would argue that the secondary source coverage is there on the page, and that clearly Scalia has achieved notability with his modeling first and foremost, especially with Abercrombie & Fitch and the controversy surrounding the photo shoot that he starred in. Again, I am new to Knowledge (XXG), and I would appreciate advice on how to properly cite references and how to link to the references throughout the article. Scalia is a notable figure, but I think perhaps my lack of expertise as a Wiki user is making it difficult to connect the dots. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsurfcat (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough secondary mainstream coverage of this invidual exists for now. JeanLatore (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Redirect to The Clique series. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pretty Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable group of characters from a series of novels. Aleready covered in the main series article, the first book article and the template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was } - Speedy snowball keep - Early close as, apart from the unanimity, the previous three AfDs had the same debate character and continuing this is clearly not going to acheive any other outcome than keep - Peripitus (Talk) 13:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Other comedians do not have articles dedicated to the information regarding their stage persona. Why is there not a George Lopez (Character) article regarding the character George Lopez on the television show, or why not a John Oliver (Character) for the Oliver's stage persona while performing on The Daily Show? The simply answer is that the stage persona of a comedian or an actor is not notable enough to have a complete article for the dedication of a stage persona. In accordance Knowledge (XXG)'s deletion policy, I gave enough time from the previous deletion before starting this deletion discuss.

To those who wish to keep the article, answer the following points

  • Why is Stephen Colbert's stage persona more significant than other comedians?
  • Why should a stage persona be developed into an article?
  • Why is Stephen Colbert's stage persona notable to include in Knowledge (XXG)
  • Regarding Colbert 08, Stephen Colbert's candidacy was legitimate as it was reviewed by the South Carolina Democratic Party to determine whether Colbert should be placed on the ballot, so was is that his stage persona running for president?
  • Knowledge (XXG) Notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." If abiding by those standards, independent sources though giving significant coverage to Stephen Colbert, gives it to Stephen Colbert himself, not his character, so there is not significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of Knowledge (XXG) that have given coerage to Colbert as a character.
  • If the above statement is true and that coverage from reliable sources is to Colbert and not his stage persona, does that make this article not notable?

Please address the preceding points to validate a decision to keep the article. Bigvinu (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems that all of the canonical validation points were addressed in the previous 3 AFDs. In answer to the first question, "Mu" - he falls under WP:FICT, therefore his significance in comparison to other comedians is irrelevant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why is there an article both for Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld (character), or for Creed Bratton and Creed Bratton (The Office)? Or, for that matter, Sacha Baron Cohen and Borat Sagdiyev? I think the persona that Colbert assumes is far more comparable to these guys - a distinct and separate character with an established history and canon - than to the personas assumed by any of the correspondents on The Daily Show, which are essentially just tailored to the joke. Colbert the character has an established history and personality which has been fleshed out throughout The Colbert Report and I Am America (And So Can You!). In terms of coverage, most journalists are able to distinguish between Colbert and his blowhard persona and discuss the latter as a separate character. I believe that notability applies, per WP:FICT. Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The sources illustrate quite nicely that the character is notable separate from the person who plays him. Judging from the article and the above users' comments, I can see that Colbert the character is distinctly different from Colbert the person, and warrants an entirely separate article. Heck, it's even GA class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep he clearly is playing a character--it happens to have the same name as he does, but not the same views etc. At this point I am convinced that the Jerry Seinfeld (character) comparison is quite apt. JJL (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Hmm... Does anyone feel that it's at least somewhat odd that this article has already been nominated for deletion three times beforehand and has still survived? If it's still here after such a tenuous history, then I think it'd be best to abide by what has already been established. First of all, Colbert's fictional persona is clearly not the only significant case worthy of mention around here (as the above users mentioned, perhaps the most appropriate example is the Jerry Seinfeld (character) page). Secondly, Colbert's short-lived run for President last year was clearly just a joke, given that he remained in-character throughout interviews during said campaign (see the now well-known Meet the Press interview, availabe on YouTube). And finally, I've read plenty of reliable news sources that have commented about both Stephen Colbert the actor and Stephen Colbert the character, including those concerning his "truthiness" crusade, his WristStrong campaign, his feuds with well-known figures, and his run for President. It should be noted that Colbert remained in-character during such appearances, like those on Good Morning America and Larry King Live — just to name a few. Furthermore, Colbert's fictional persona is certainly more developed and fleshed out than those of his Daily Show colleagues, and the views of his stage persona are actually quite different from his real life potrayer. All that said, I think it's pretty clear why the Stephen Colbert character deserves an individual article. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:FICT. The last AFD was brought up by the same nominator, which ended in a snowball keep. I seriously doubt this will be any different. SashaNein (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It's also listed as a Good Article, and rightfully so. Even though the nom has a long rationale, it's quite weak and full of irrelevant and inappropriate comparisons, as pointed out by others. SashaNein (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as his character is clearly notable judging by the coverage by reliable and independent sources. The reason such does not accrue strictly to Colbert the person is the depth and breadth of that coverage, which requires more than just a sentence or paragraph as in analogous examples of comedians playing "themselves". --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close Well-known and notable character, per exhaustive sourcing in the article; the rest of the nomination has no apparent basis in WP policy. Townlake (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

David Ciccone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to Wisconsin Public Radio. The edit history is still there for anyone who wants to merge it. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here on Earth - Radio Without Borders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish why this radio show is notable. Show is syndicated across Wisconsin and in parts of Idaho but without references, it's hard to make a case for notability. Google News brings up little of use, EBSCO database search of newspapers brings up only a single mention, in an interview with one of the hosts in The Wisconsin State Journal. Fails to satisfy Knowledge (XXG):Notability Rtphokie (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. BJ 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Shenick Network Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 8. I would suggest that interested editors revisit this issue post-election to determine whether the provided sourcing indicates sufficiently notability for a standalone article, but should not be restored prior to that without the emergence of significant new sourcing. As there is no consensus to delete this material, the edit history is preserved beneath the redirect. Shereth 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Manion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO Manion is a first time congressional candidate with pretty much no notability prior to the campaign. If he wins, then obviously he is notable, but any assumption about future notability would be more or less crystal balling. Montco (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This AfD was previously closed as delete, but then after discussion with the closing administrator, the deletion was reviewed at DRV, and it was determined that this should be relisted to allow review of new sources. I have converted the original closing comments to a generic comment below, and have restored the article for the purpose of relisting. To review the deletion review discussion, see Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2008 August 6. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for Now/Re-Post. Just being a candidate for congress does not make him mentionable on Knowledge (XXG). If this were the case, Knowledge (XXG) would be the larges free political campaign site in the Country. I think the poster should delete this listing for now and repost it should the candidate win and become a congressman. Alienlady24 (August 13, 2008) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. In most instances, becoming a major-party candidate for Congress is enough to confer notability. There might be exceptions for candidates who attract little notice because they're put up as sacrificial lambs against well-entrenched incumbents in heavily partisan districts -- I'm a politics junkie and I can't even remember whom the Republicans ran in my heavily Democratic district last time. In this instance, though, the district is fairly even (D+3) and the incumbent is a first-termer, so being the Republican challenger is notable. JamesMLane t c 08:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree to keep this article, this race has attracted significant national media attention (FoxNews, Bloomberg, CSM, NPR off the top of my head) which is significant for a house race in August. Obviously the attention is from both candidates attachments to the Iraq War. Also, I see no problem with his notability coming from the campaign...he's a major party candidate running in a competitive house race that has significant coverage outside of his district and is going to be one of the most expensive in the country..keep it. Bellz (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per the changes and expansion of the article with new sources establishing notability and potential for an article. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Crawler (The Descent) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability standards, has only one source, and couldn't possibly grow into anything worthwhile. DurinsBane87 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Fangoria does report this: For makeup and prosthetics creator Paul Hyett, returning to the hellish bowels of the Earth represented a great opportunity to broaden and refine his Crawler designs. “We had already gone through a major testing period on The Descent,” he explains. “So augmenting their personalities and looks and devising new, exciting killing methods were all I really had to worry about. I’ve played around more with their camouflaging skin tones, so they blend in better with their surroundings for stronger shocks. Jon wanted them more viciously feral, inbred, scarred and deformed, with rows of sharklike teeth for ripping flesh. Here, we go further into the creatures’ habitat and see their charnel house, bone-strewn domain and even a set we’ve affectionately dubbed the ‘Crawler Crapper.’" Don't know if that will change any minds. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Horologium (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Edward Joseph Oakley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looks like a hoax. No hits on Google for his full name and no relevant hits from his initials (P. E. J. Oakley, Peter E. J. Oakley, P. E. Oakley, E. J. Oakley). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑