Knowledge

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Student band which fails WP:MUSIC; only reference is to student-run website reporting that the band came second in a battle of the bands contest. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Keep. When I saw the reference to the article at The Yorker, I assumed that it was a newspaper. Having reviewed the site's self-description at http://www.theyorker.co.uk/about/ , I consider that it is a reliable source on the same level as a newspaper, and that the coverage by The Yorker qualifies as substantial coverage by a reliable source. I would not have kept the article without that reference, though. --Eastmain (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Forgettable band, even though it has substantial coverage by a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and I do not regard The Yorker as a reliable source - I see no evidence that this website has an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Music, The Yorker appears to be little more than a college newspaper. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unless notability can be shown through a substantially more worthy source than The Yorker... Ryanniemi (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 20 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Beauville (Gob song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep By a very notable artist, legotech probally hasn't even read WP:Music | 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC). | 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:38, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What To Do (Gob song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep By a very notable artist, legotech probally hasn't even read WP:Music | 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
• Merge into How Far Shallow Takes You (however that's up for AfD too, but will likely be kept because it was released on a notable record label by a notable band). Does the nominator have a point or something in these several Gob related AfDs? Doc StrangeLogbook 20:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be careful about accusing anyone of disrupting WP to make a point. The "point" of all of these was that the author was WP:OWNing the articles and the prod was contested and any merge or redirect would have been reverted by the fan. So, I was not trying to disrupt anything, but deal with things that should be gone in the approved manner. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but nomming several items very similar to each other makes it seem like you had some sort of vendetta. That isn't the case according to your post, which is a good thing. Doc StrangeLogbook 07:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: It DOES seem to be the case. You appear to have not grasped the idea of WP:MUSIC. The single is by a notable band and issued on Nettwerk Records, a notable independent record label. Which meets two critereon of WP:MUSIC. You don't have to meet every single criterion of WP:MUSIC for something to be notable. Doc StrangeLogbook 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So this bit doesn't matter for songs, just everything else in WP? "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, a merge into How Far Shallow Takes You (now that it's been kept) would be reasonable. Doc StrangeLogbook 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:40, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I Hear You Calling (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep One of GOB's most notable songs. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... | 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable per WP:MUSIC for its inclusion in the Molson Canadian commercials.  Esradekan Gibb  00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. The claim of being in a major advertising campaign suggests that surces might exist if someone bothered to search for them. Edison (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. I don't see how it fails WP:MUSIC as the nominator stated.-- Ryan Cross (talk) 18:37, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No Regrets (Gob song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... | 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:45, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Give Up the Grudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's GOB's Most notable song and has had plenty of outside coverage. Please read WP:Music before tagging irrelevant things with AFDs, like you have with pretty much every article relating to GOB. | 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Super Speedy Keep This is one of the most popular and most notable songs from GOB. Also considering the trend from the nominator for nominatin GOB-only articles to AFD with none from others, I could almost call this a bad faith nomination or at least suspicous nomination.--JForget 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If I find another band that has every single listed with nothing more than the song title and a description of the music video, I'll happily take those to AfD as well. If you think there is WP:RS out there, how about fixing the article instead of accusing me of bad faith anything? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:45, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Ellin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... | 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP (several were already deleted or redirected by AfD) and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable per WP:MUSIC for its inclusion in the video game NHL 2004.  Esradekan Gibb  00:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. There is no inherent notability for being included in some video game. Edison (talk) 05:48, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Break (Gob Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge To album. | 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:49, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Soda (Gob song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. NN, but wouldn't complain about a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... | 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:50, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Underground (Gob song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... | 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP (several were already deleted or redirected by AfD) and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:51, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... | 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) r] 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:52, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... | 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. and WP:MUSIC. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:53, 18 May 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 WP:MUSIC. Unfortunately no one has stepped in to save this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable a cappella group. Fails WP:MUSIC, as Yahoo reveals only one non-trivial story--this one from the San Diego Union-Tribune. I was in two minds as to whether to hit the AfD button, but the fact that the creator is Perunika (talk · contribs) clinched it. Blueboy96 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, clearly promotional G11 material; creator was blocked for promotional use of a promotional username. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Waffling I tagged this for speedy before the references were added -- funny how people don't add references until after something gets tagged -- and I agree with the obvious COI, but I think it's borderline notable at this point with the capsule reviews in major media and an AMG listing. Could possibly be saved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:MUSIC & WP:COI.  Esradekan Gibb  00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:28, 20 May 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, A7 (no assertion of notability). Blueboy96 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. This is not notable. End of story. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete. Knowledge isn't just for Americans, a lot of people in Britain use wikipedia too. Just because some people haven't heard of it doesn't mean that it isn't notable. For example, some people haven't heard of Europium, but nobody deletes that article! Why are people anti-British? :-( Rich 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich nffc (talk • contribs)

Also I put a lot of hard work into making this article! It took me a very long time to get the correct grid reference Rich 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich nffc (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 speedily deleted by author request. --Moonriddengirl 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

24 hours in a day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article presents a number of highly speculative reasons for the 24 hour day. Although these are mathematically correct, reliable sources have not been provided linking them to the invention of the 24 hour clock. Therefore the entire article is original research by synthesis. The only verifiable content, that the 24 hour clock was invented in ancient Egypt, is already discussed with sources in the article 12 hour clock. silly rabbit (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, might this be possibly speedy as a posible hoax? D.M.N. (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Not really speediable, but nothing reliable to merge. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This page was produce from the scheme ofinfinity symbol article, any explanation in wiki about the origin of the 24 hours "choice" is speculative. The "dimensions in nature" is too speculative? It's just another possible explanation, with no less legitimity than the other explanations. If anyone can send me a non-speculative explanation about this topic, I will be glad to receive it. I also would be glad to merge the article, for example in a compact form without illustrations. Firedrop (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact in the infinity symbol article, the possibility of the 8 being a hourglass functions very well and is an impressive possibility, the dimensional 24 is same minded. At least the article can be compacted to one possible explanation of 24 in the hour article or the 24 hour clock, without its illustrations for better integration?Firedrop (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I wrote when prodding it: it's original research by synthesis. The individual facts used as "evidence" here (the structure of the garnet crystal, or the existence of certain regular 4-polytopes) are not in question, but there is no reliable sourcing for putting them together into a theory that they had anything to do with the origins of our system of time measurement. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Please check the present state of the article, anything over hypothetical has been removed, in order, I repeat, to follow the scheme of theinfinity symbol article. Should I remove it myself?Firedrop (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Infinity symbol is (as of this writing) decorated with a notice that it contains unsourced claims. This is not a model to emulate. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Mostly WP:OR or duplication of info already included in Hour. Pburka (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep just another hypothesis, can be added to the hour article hypothesisFiredrop (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. OK for WP:OR as no external source cited this hypothesis before, thanks for your time. Firedrop (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Based on this !vote, I've tagged the article for WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article on days gives enough information. Martarius (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. In its present form appears to be almost entirely OR. Also, a bit of a content fork for 12-hour clock. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• CommentThis deletion process was truly catalyzing for my hypothesis, I speedily needed to change regular to rhombic dodecahedron (only rhombic files 3D space). Also it made me discover the interesting honeycomb structure and it's possible observation by the A.Egyptians both for hexagon and rhombic dodecahedral honeycomb. Thanks to all of you! Firedrop (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article titled hour reports the origins in ancient Egypt of the practice of dividing the day into 24 hours. The fact that honeycombs satisfy a principle of minimum energy is almost certainly reported in some appropriate article too, and the claim that these two both belong in the same article for the reasons proposed just isn't cogent at all. Similarly for the various other topics in this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• CommentThe idea is crystal clear: they had the star clock during the night and the sun during the day. Now they needed to choose a number that permits to divide the day into parts. The whole context is periodic, periodic days, years etc...

In the 2D what is more appealing than the also periodic shape called hexagon that appears as minimal energy..., same for the 3D rhombic dodecahedron, and knowing that in the 1D they are only 3 objects, their is a good possibility that 24 looked liked the ideal number to symbolize time. It's just a hypothesis, but it refers to a very simple observational process of conceptualizing and assimilating the dimensions.Firedrop (talk) 23:45, 17 May 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 notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

List of sportspeople by nickname (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was Speedy Deleted last July, BLP concerns. To me, it looks like an indiscrimiate list. A lot of the article is unreferenced, and parts may be concerned trivia, as it is someone's nickname, which may not be notable for an encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Nicknames are obviously notable. 'Magic' Johnson. 'Rocket' Ronnie. etc etc. Reference concerns for individual entries should be treated in the normal way, which is not Afd. As for this being an 'indiscriminate list', that's just nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very valuable, indeed the field of sports is one in which the use of knicknames is quite widespread, so this article serves as a good reference. TheWP:INDISCRIMINATE guidelines only quotes FAQs, plot summaries, lyrics, stats and news reports, little to do with the aim of this article. Mrbluesky (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'm (slowly) adding cites for the various nicknames in the article one section at a time (I'm starting with the various tennis nicks), and intend to blank each section of unreferenced stuff once I'm done. But I do believe the list should stay once fully referenced. Tabercil (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This list could easily become unmanageable. For some sections we might be better off with the converse of this list, e.g. List of professional wrestlers without nicknames. Pburka (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. But in the original alphabetical format, as in this current format, separate lists for different sporting disciplines do exist. therefore it makes an easy target for AfD. Jay Pegg (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. These nicknames are notable. The only problem is that the list is not sourced. --Rabbethan 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:28, 20 May 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, thus keep, though needs better sourcing to be honest. Black Kite 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hotel Union Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hotel. No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. The fact that Dashiel Hammett's bride once spent a night there is completely trivial.  Sandstein  17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per and . Per the March 11, 2007 Toronto Sun this is the first boutique hotel in SF, if you need a claim of notability. Will try to add some of these sources to article. --Rividian (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I did perform these searches. They do not provide us with any substantial coverage, as far as I can see, and we would need such coverage to provide notability, not just WP:GHITS.  Sandstein  19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Several results, including the one I mentioned and do seem to be substantial coverage. I didn't say anything about the number of hits... --Rividian (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to that Toronto Sun article? The LA Times article is a good start, but I don't know whether 289 words about a renovation are a sufficient basis for a neutral encyclopedia article.  Sandstein  20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got it off Lexus Nexus. The coverage is actually not that great, 3 paragraphs, but it does establish the notability claim. I understand sceptisim about the sourcing... I wish I had time to actually reference them in the article. But with various articles over the years, even if just 289 words, it seems notable enough for me. --Rividian (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, needs references but clearly a notable and historic hotel, whatever its current status. Suggest broader search next time. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Change vote to weak delete, possibly fixable but unsure at this time. A good chunk of hits for "Golden West Hotel" are for ones in LA and San Diego, and for one in San Francisco which apparently was a casualty of the 1906 quake and fire. And searching on "union square hotel", even with "san francisco", finds sources which are primarily about one in New York. "hotel union square" is complicated by other hotels which put those three words at the end of their names, like the Crowne Plaza Hotel Union Square. It does seem to be one to which Hammett was partial, and per a source I added Lillian Hellman was another guest, so it's a favorite itinerary stop for their fans. But I can't find even confirmation of when it was built other than the Personality Hotels website. Sorry, Sandstein. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per Dhartung, unless more sources are found. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a well-known San Francisco hotel. I'm somewhat surprised to see it here (for subject matter -- the article, admittedly, needs work). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, could you provide references to sources covering it?  Sandstein  05:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think the material available is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 05:01, 21 May 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 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Triethanolamides such as a "cocamido triethanolamide" do not exist (at least not as stable compounds). A Beilstein database search did not give a single hit for any triethanolamide and only 5 suspect hits for trialkylamides in general. The confusion probably stems from listings were "cocamide" and "TEA" (triethanolamine) were listed subsequently as different chemicals. Cacycle (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Chem is incorrect, probably a mistaken spin-off of a jargon-rich area.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strange, is this a case of a "chemical urban legend"? There are 651 google hits for "cocamide TEA", and it's even mentioned in one book. But neither the web pages nor the book seem really authoritative. And a few hundred hits is nothing compared with the ~100,000 google hits and about 100 book hits for its relatives cocamide DEA and cocamide MEA. It's also revealing that cocamide DEA even has a CAS registry number (68603-42-9), and cocamide MEA too (68140-00-1). But there is no CAS number for cocamide TEA. All in all, I'm leaning towards Delete. --Itub (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I get 124 unique hits, but a very high proportion of them are Knowledge mirrors. Also, the book gives an incorrect (and impossible) structure for cocamide DEA, so it obviously has at least some errors in this area. It's listed as having been published in 2007, so it's possible that the (brief) reference to cocamide TEA is derived from Knowledge. Iain99 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The compound does not appear in Chemical Abstracts indicating that there has been no mention of this compound in the chemical literature - a near impossibility for something that is claimed to be an ingredient in commercial personal care products. From a chemistry standpoint, this would be unlikely to be a stable compound. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The reaction of triethanolamine with a fatty acid would (maybe) produce a soap, but we seem to have no reliable data on which to base an article. As it stands, the article has no specific references and its only external link—broken, as it turns out—is to the : while I wouldn't want to criticize the site itself, links to this site are a very good pointer to badly written chemicals articles, in my humble experience. Physchim62 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I had a crude search of the abstract and titles in a patent database and found no hits for "cocamide TEA". For comparison "cocamide MEA" gave 12 hits and "cocamide DEA" gave 15 hits, so maybe this is not the most sensitive search. The only real hit I found on the web was but it doesn't appear to be the most definitive web page I've ever seen. Based on the above comments, delete -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I did a substructure search with the triethanolamine/fatty acid headgroup in the Sigma-Aldrich website and got no hits. In comparison the same search with the DEA headgroup recovered five compounds containing this structure. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Many chemical substances used in commerce are undefined mixtures, such as this. See the article on Cocamide--this is not a single compound, but a ,ixture of chemical species with variable lengths of the carbon chain. there are many analogs among substances used as fats or their derivatives. The article needs some editing to clarify this. DGG (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• No one is denying the existence of notable mixtures. In fact, cocamide DEA and cocamide MEA (which are not nominated for deletion) are mixtures. But unlike "cocamide TEA": 1) they have CAS numbers; 2) they are found in multiple reliable chemical databases and catalogs; 3) they produce 100-1000 times more google and google books hits; 4) they are chemically plausible. The relatively few google hits for "cocamide TEA" are likely either typos or misconceptions. --Itub (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• We have reliable information for cocamide: we have not been able to find any reliable sources for this article. That in itself is a good enough reason for deletion in my book. Physchim62 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have to ask, what level of proof are we assessing this on? "Beyond reasonable double" or on the "balance of probability". If it is on "BOP" then this article should be deleted. If it is "BRD" then DGG has a point and I think there is some doubt as to whether this is a "real" compound or not, perhaps only being transient in nature. However that said, I think I would still say that it is "BRD" that this compound is not real and should be deleted. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unlike Cocamide MEA and Cocamide DEA, it's an implausible structure, at least as a stable compound in an aqueous environment (as it would have to be in a shampoo). This is equally true whether it's a single chain length or a mixture of chain lengths - you can't put three alkyl groups on the nitrogen of an amide and get a stable compound. I was surprised to see the name mentioned briefly in a couple of patents (eg ), but there's no way of telling whether this refers to a different structure to the one shown, or is the result of a simple error in writing the patent. It may be the article was the result of a misconception or misunderstanding; I've asked the creator to comment, but he doesn't seem very active these days. Delete as implausible and unverifiable. Iain99 11:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note a further sign that the creator was confused about this compound; it was added to the Surfactant article as a non-ionic surfactant, yet the structure drawn is that of an ionic compound. Iain99 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• And I'm no longer confused by the patent; a close reading shows that the list of surfactants in claim 8 is identical to the list in Surfactant - it was probably copied from Knowledge. Sloppy. Iain99 14:09, 22 May 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 per WP:CSD#G3. user:Lyle123 hoax. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N et al. asenine 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. How can you tell? This page (and the related list) were created today, and there isn't enough context yet even to tell what this is. (By the way, the AfD template was missing from the article, so I added it.) AnturiaethwrTalk 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I do, however, lean toward deletion, given that a Google search doesn't help me figure out what "HsmFriends" is. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete If memory serves,hasn't this page (and similar pages) been deleted time after time? If so, why should this time be any different? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - there needs to be a Speedy category for this (maybe too little context? /shrug). As it is now, there's not enough there, there doesn't seem to be any way to expand it, and it misses WP:N by a mile. The author keeps removing the afd template, which adds to the annoyance. Merenta (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, now I can give a firm strong delete. This is borderline gibberish (maybe enough for a G1 speedy), but as far as I can make out it fails WP:N (and probably others) by a country mile parsec. It definitely has been deleted before, but I think that was a G1, so G4 doesn't apply yet. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry, that was List of HsmFriends episodes, which looks like it was deleted under G1 no fewer than four times within four minutes about two weeks ago, judging by the author's Talk page. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Borderline unintelligible, possibily fits speedy G1. Did anyone actually understand which future show the article is talking about? Nsk92 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't any new show - the links to the imdb entry and tv.com go to pages about a completely different show, and the "oficial website" link goes to the author's YouTube page. This is a hoax. What a piece of work. Merenta (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also this page mentions that this youtube show was once called "Lucky Ashley" which is a deleted page that's protected against recreation. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious, spam, stupidity, you name it. Also delete every article this hoaxmonger has created. JuJube (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the creator of this article is still at work and there was another one added just a few hours ago:List of Hsmfriends(Season 1). Should all this be reported at WP:AN/I? Or maybe at WP:AIV? Nsk92 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

An internet search for the novels this person is best known for turns up no information; neither does a Google search for his name alone. Seems to be a non-notable person. Rnb (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a hoax. No references anywhere, Google search for author's name returns only the 2 Knowledge hits. Nsk92 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious JuJube (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero ghits outside of Knowledge. Probably a hoax and in the unlikely case it's not I doubt anything in the article can be verified via reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as I had a similar lack of success finding sources on dogpile.com. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This obvious hoax should have been speedied. Qworty (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I added a search through the Gale database, just in case such a boy wonder should turn up in a newspaper article or magazine, but K.K.'s accomplishments seem to have gone unrecorded. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:01, 20 May 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.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

A speedy tag was declined but I think this is a straightforward non-notable autobiography, ie. spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N, therefore, non-notable.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment On what do you base your circular 'delete' argument? Have you personally done a search to verify that he is non-notable? Have you seen his biography on his music publisher's site which reprints an interview with him from Trace Magazine, for example? Have you checked to see if he might meet the notability criteria for composers? He co-wrote one of the songs on Alice Smith's latest album. Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice to re-creation when/if he does become more notable. I have done a pretty thorough search, and he does not appear to have achieved that yet. The solo tour hasn't happened yet for one thing. One of the songs on the Alice Smith album mentioned above, is notable ("Dream"), but it was not the one that Mohr co-wrote ("Desert Song"). And no, Knowledge is not the place for advance PR. However, it was right for the admin to have declined the speedy delete. It was slapped on the article within 2 minutes of its creation! Far more appropriate to tag and then wait a few days to see if the creator or anyone else could have developed the article and provide references. Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Voceditenore. --Bardin (talk) 11:14, 19 May 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 Close As Misunderstanding Of Policy. Non-Admin Closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

List of nu metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This Article is a List And should be deleted. Trees Rock 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - As with most music genres, this list provides readers more information than a category. While origin of the band is the only additional information given in the list in question, it could be enhanced to provide more information. See here for more lists. As many bands (particularily in the rock / heavy metal area) are associated with a large range of different genres or subgenres, often not all genres are included by category in the article to prevert overcategorization. This list gives the info that would be missing that way. Also, I cannot help but to assume bad faith in this nomination (nu metal is a genre disliked by many), as the nominator did not nominate any other lists, some of which are identical in layout to this one. Further more, the nominator did not provide an actual reason for deletion. ~ | twsx | _cont | ~ 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nom does not give a reason for bringing this to AFD, aside from the fact it was a list. lists are indeed allowed on Knowledge Doc StrangeLogbook 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep/close - Nom blatantly misunderstands policy. asenine 17:30, 17 May 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 independetly established notability. References are to self published works on other sites. It does look like a attempt to self promote. - Nabla (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason behind this are -
a. This seems to be a self advertisement. The article has been written by one of the concerned persons, Anil Aggarwala, who incidentally has authored a number of articles on himself and his achievements/books in wikipedia. The site's URL is http://sumerdoc.blogspot.com/.
b. The different references links provide in blog, when looked up, provides the following result -

Journal of Thoracic Imaging is self published by the author of the blog Sumer Sethi.

Same with BMJ

The Radiographics link cited is dubious in nature as this actually is an e-mail by the author of the blog Dr. Sumer Sethi.

Similarly, International Society of Radiology link is self published by Dr. Sumer Sethi.

The blog has one genuine mention in Times of India, but not in the main paper. It was mentioned in the meant for Delhi only supplement Delhi Times. The link is here

The blog is a winner of MedGadget 2005 web award for best clinical blog the link of which is here

c. A Google search (check it out here) does not offer established sources to verify the claims of notability by the Editor.

Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note the edits by Anil1956 & 122.162.58.16. Same wordings. Both are from Delhi. Now see the edits by the IP user,Special:Contributions/122.162.58.16. Any suggestions? It is clear that the user Anil1956 is using Sock Puppets to boos up his case. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason of notability is in the wikipedia policy itself Internet guides. Knowledge articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. This article is not a description of the site alone but the phenomenon of which site is popularly considered as forrunner callled as Rad blogging. Agreed Article in Journal of thoracic imaging is self published but very fact it was accepted for publication in a leading Radiology indexed journal establishes itsrole in changing the outlook from journals to blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Kindly repeat the internet search with the title "Sumer's Radiology Site" which is exact title of the weblog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs)

• Kindly sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason of notability is in the wikipedia policy itself Internet guides. Knowledge articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. This article is not a description of the site alone but the phenomenon of which site is popularly considered as forrunner callled as Rad blogging. Agreed Article in Journal of thoracic imaging is self published but very fact it was accepted for publication in a leading Radiology indexed journal establishes itsrole in changing the outlook from journals to blogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.58.16 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, only one source that is not self-published or written (e.g. no matter the prestige of the medical journal, a letter to the editor touting one's blog does not translate into notability). --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The article in question in Journal of thoracic imaging is not a letter to editor its a review article kindly recheck and it acknowledges Rad-Blogging as a new phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.59.146 (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It is a "review article" that is written by the blogger. It is not an independent source, and does not count toward notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:31, 20 May 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Buddhist temples in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This stand-alone list is severely lacking and impossible to complete. It fails to serve the purposes outlined under WP:LIST#Purposes of lists, has no notability criteria for inclusion and is not annotated, thereby providing no useful information whatsoever (perhaps except for sorting by province, which is entirely replaceable by subcategorising.) Paul_012 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, there are a total of 33,902 registered functioning Buddhist temples in Thailand as of 2004 according to the ministry of culture. Mentioning a handful, half of which are red links, with no regard to importance or notability, is unlikely to provide encyclopaedic information in my opinion. --Paul_012 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, looks fine to me. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Provides information categories cannot-- organization by geography, images, and useful red-links for future articles. Clearly a notable subject. Just needs some sourcing and maybe some text/information. If the list gets too long, break it up into sections. Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have incorporated the geographical organisation provided by this list into the structure of Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand. Images can be included in category pages. Also, the list guidelines state that "as Knowledge is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." --Paul_012 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Dekkappai (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs a lot of work, obviously, but this is insufficient reason to delete a subject that is clearly notable and encyclopedic. Eventually could be broken into subarticles by area/city, etc. once comprehensiveness grows. Good Ol’factory 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• If the page is to be kept, advise on how to turn the page into an encyclopaedic article would be appreciated. Granted, there is an official list (in Thai), but even if someone were to undertake the daunting task of translating and incorporating the thirty-thousand-plus temples into the article, it would leave us with a list one hundred times the length of List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. I wonder what the reader would gain from such a list, which borders on being a directory, which Knowledge is not. --Paul_012 11:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No one is arguing that lists are "encyclopaedic". Lists are "almanacical". Knowledge is a reference work containing elements of an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Perfect example of regiocentricity. Church list is ok, temple list is bad. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. I never said that such lists of churches are of great encyclopaedic value (although that one is far more complete and informative than this list), nor did I say this list should be deleted because it is a list of temples. It is, however, a hugely incomplete list of multiple subjects, some of which are notable, some of which aren't, with very poor prospect of ever being expanded and improved enough to be of use. I've been watching the page for two years, and although there have been additions now and then, all that's been achieved is an arbitrary list which provides no further information about its topics. As I said above, though, suggestions to improvement are welcome, though I wonder who would be interested enough in the article to apply them. --Paul_012 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are various comparable lists of churches - List of churches in Greater Manchester is one of the better ones. A directory gives addresses and phone numbers - not sure there is any danger of that. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I have to side with Paul on this one -- the list is incomplete, and there are too many red links in what is presented. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Incomplete is not a reason for deletion. If it was, we would have to delete every stub in Knowledge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I do not understand the nominator's rationale. Thailand is famous for the religion and temples. Even though the list has long way to go, but I don't see any good reason for the list to be deleted. List is a compact version of what related articles are here and have to be created. If the red links are problems, then create article or de-linked. --Appletrees (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I find the "The list is incomplete, delete it" argument quite fascinating. Is there a movement afoot to delete all non-complete articles now? Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: obviously the list would benefit from (a lot of) upgrading work but the subject matter is unobjectionable, and lists are complementary to cats, not opposed to them. HeartofaDog (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable subject and appropriate list . DGG (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable list. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:41, 22 May 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. Some sources have been found, and while they haven't satisfied everybody, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete, and a number of editors have expressed that this element in Half-Life is too important to remove. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Mesa Research Facility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the notability requirements for fiction, dealing entirely with the subject from an in universe perspective with no secondary sources which prove notability. I would say merge, except all the good info has been summarized within the games. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per the well-detailed nom. Fancruft.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Half-Life (series). I would say merge, but the good, relevant information is already in the appropriate articles. On its own, the subject simply isn't notable. This could only ever be written in an in-universe style. Celarnor 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge trimmed content to Half-Life (series) (also would include Black Mesa East and City 17 at the same time though they are not part of this AFD). A "setting" section in a article about a video game series would be completely appropriate. --MASEM 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Especially since they don't come much more iconic than Black Mesa. Maybe Azeroth amd Level 1-1. --Kizor

• • Keep per references found since. However, article needs major cleanup - we do not need a complete rundown of the facilities that are in the site that are mostly sourced from primary, just a general overview. --MASEM 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - And merge anything useful beforehand to the series article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep as notable element of notable game that is well presented with references that are consistent per First pillar with a specialized enyclopedia. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a good reason for deletion, nor is WP:PERNOM. Also, we cannot merge and delete per Knowledge:Merge and delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete and merge some kind of summarized overview to a Half-life article, as something that is not notable outside of the context of that main Half-life article. Randomran (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Simply a plot "summary" plus detailed physical description of various levels of Half-Life. Nifboy (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Knowledge is an encyclopedia, and as such doesn't need this level of detail per WP:NOT#INFO. Una Laguna 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Phlegm Rooster's findings below assert notability and are plentiful enough to justify the subject matter an article to itself, even if the current article needs a cleanup. Una Laguna 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: I was notified of the AfD of this article as its original creator. It has grown into a very detailed work translated into over a dozen languages since I last worked on it four years ago. If it were to be merged as some have suggested the detailed information contained in it would be lost in a more general article. Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia and I see no reason why there can't be articles about seemingly trivial matters in fictional universes as is the case here if there are users willing to maintain the article, as is obviously the case given its current state. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree that this isn't any more fit for deletion than any of the other articles on fictional locations (see Azeroth in the World of Warcraft universe as an example. At worst merge into Half-Life 2 and keep the bulk of the text, because it's such a central element to the game--Camokub (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Azeroth is a disambiguation pointing to Warcraft (series), its article having been redirected. Nifboy (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Being the fictional location of one of the most popular games in the world is not trivial. Knowledge is one of the best sources on the internet for HL-related stuff, and it would be a shame to see it all deleted due to some nonsence about "notability". --The monkeyhate (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I figured that an extremely significant and well-known element of game design would raise professional interest. A cursory search found things like Narrative in Computer Games and Story: Writing Skills for Game Developers from the Game Developers' Conference. I'm going to go with keep here, those who have experience in editing Half-Life - related things or finding references for video game coverage should look deeper into this. --Kizor 14:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While both can be considered secondary sources, the references above do not talk about Black Mesa, only giving the nod that Half Life takes place within it. Any sources for notability need to be more than just mentions of the location and should be more about any critical reception or commentary on it, or even developer information (I've done a google news search with no luck along these lines). --MASEM 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, true enough on the sourcing requirements, but I figured - and figure - that these two do describe Black Mesa beyond just mentioning it as the place where Half-Life happens. There's a fair few things to be said about the way the location is designed to conduct narrative indirectly without taking control away from the player, and the sense of ordinary life gone wrong that the first game's peaceful opening underlines. You'll be happy to note that the former file does have developer information about the narrative and the inspiration of Stephen King's The Mist. --Kizor 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Even if one could read those as sufficient analysis for secondary sources, if those are the only two we have (I'm not saying there may not be more), the amount of other content in the article relative to this is out of balance. The influence of "The mist" can still be mentioned if merged to another article. --MASEM 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. I wonder if we're perhaps getting sidetracked here? There is no argument that Half Life is a very popular game and that this is a very nice, extensive article about one of HL's locations. Nobody wants to vaporize the article into nonexistence. The question is simply whether it belongs here in WP. As an encyclopedia article, it has many problems that have been pointed out and that haven't been fixed: the material is told from an in-universe perspective which is not appropriate for WP, there is a distinct lack of 3rd-party citations, and there is at least a serious question of notability as this article rests solely on the notability of HL, not its own. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As already indicated above, per the GFDL, we cannot legally "merge and delete". Please see Knowledge:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. So, since the good information all appears elsewhere, as already indicated above, there is no need for such a flawed article. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • As has been indicated throughout this discussion there are far more reasons to keep this article than to delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no reason not to keep the article. Unless, of course, someone feels like he has the authority to decide what fits in and what doesn't. Soviet censors did the same thing. Mikael GRizzly (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• What --Kizor 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki Why not transwiki to Half life wikia?. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, it was easy to find that this particular fictional location is very notable. It has 7 Google books hits, 11 Google scholar hits, and 53 Google news hits. Some of these sources do more than mention the location; they claim that it was ground-breaking, responsible for the success of the game, and well-realized, among other things. They discuss, in detail, what the visual and temporal design of the location means to the player as the game is played. We could ask no more of the sources than this, the very definition of notability. I loaded up the article's lead with some of the book references just now, please take a look. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the google books, at least from the previews shown, merit significant coverage; they are merely mentions. Same thing for the scholar mentions; they are mentioning the setting of Half-Life, but unless they are providing critical commentary exclusively about the location, it doesn't meet notability requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The article already exists in transwikied form here. If the article is kept then it needs to be entirely ripped up and started again from an encyclopedic viewpoint as its current form is unacceptable. There's no disputing (although someone inevitably will) that the article is an utter mess of in-universe information and original research. If deleted, redirect to Half-Life (series) afterwards to preserve the search term. In any case, most of the relevant articles contain much of the necessary information already in the "setting" sections. -- Sabre (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Google News results linked by Phlegm Rooster. These clearly demonstrate notability. Oren0 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they don't. See above comments, Knowledge:Notability (fiction) and WP:N. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of interpretation (or spin), but I have tried to distinguish between mere mentions and reviews/analysis. I think the sources rise to the occasion in this rare case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability (fiction) is a proposed policy. The policy for notability in general requires non-trivial mention in third-party reliable sources, which this article meets. Though I would support Merging to Locations in the Half-Life series as proposed directly below. Oren0 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion This might be a reasonable case to merge Black Mesa Research Facility, City 17, Black Mesa East, Xen, Nova Prospeck, Ravenholm, The Coast, White Forest Rocket Facility, and possibly the section on Aperture Science from Portal (video game) to a single article Locations in the Half-Life series. This is tied with the references mentioned above in that though explicit for Half-Life, I would not be surprised to find similar comments for the Half-Life 2 locations (I can find at least one on Ravenhelm) - in other words, there does appear to be sufficient sources to state that the "locations" of Half-Life games are notable. Merging them (with redirects, so as not to merge and delete, and transwiking existing pages) with the correct amount of trimming, may be helpful to link these aspects all in to avoid the excess text that might be there presently, yet present all these locations in an encyclopedic manner. --MASEM 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be an ideal solution. While individual locations may not be notable, establishing notability for the concept of locations in HL should work - its what we do for a lot of character articles after all. That gets my support. -- Sabre 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article seems to perfectly satisfy verifability and other requirements, and I believe it should stay.Paulalex19 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It certainly does not "perfectly satisfy verifability" - it barely references anything. Practically all of the article is original research, based on what the original writer deduced from the games. -- Sabre (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable location in highly notable series. Size suggests merging may be unwieldy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is the size of this article. It is not necessary to cover all the known portions of the facility, but instead to give a general overview of what the non-gamer should be aware exists within the facility as to understand why it is being called notable per the sources above (this puts undue weight on the in-universe aspects and not on it's reception). Most of this can be cut down to 2-4 paragraphs to keep the critical information, and thus making merging with other locations reasonable. Right now, as it stands, it is too much in-universe in tone, and reads like a promotional brochure for employment at Black Mesa. "Come work for us! Just ignore all the headcrabs..." Cutting down to key salient points (it is huge with its own internal underground tram system, there are numerous people employed there, and the research that goes on is this list) you still get the flavor of what BM is to be to those that have not played the game. --MASEM 13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • agree.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and edit very sharply. Its notable enough in the fiction for an article, but as is frequently the case, not all of it is important except to the fans. But some of it relevant to any understanding of the general topic. ,DGG (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It has still not been demonstrated that Black Mesa is independently notable; in all sources brought to the discussion thus far it is always discussed in the context of the Half-Life games. Notability is not inherited, and lots of games have their settings named in reviews, etc. but that doesn't make those settings notable. If the fictional locales of a game series is worth preserving outside the game articles, it should be done so via Masem's suggestion above. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the case of sub and spinout articles, notability is inherited. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A spinout article needs to be clearly marked as such, per the suggestion I referred to earlier in merging it to "Locations in Half-Life" or any similarly titled article ("Setting of Half-Life"). A title that implies that the subject is independently notable ("Black Mesa Research Facility") is a no-go. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Either trim to one or two sourced paragraphs and merge to Locations in the Half-Life series per Masem or delete. The possible sources identified by Phlegm Rooster fall slightly short of establishing notability for the subject, in my opinion, but together with sources for other locations there may be enough for a combined article. Jakew (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Casliber. Clearly notable feature of an even more clearly notable game series. Is the Enterprise from Star Trek not notable? Of course it is. Xihr (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Enterprise can establish its notability through third party sources. While the Enterprise article may not be a shining example of a properly done fictional article, you can at least see some of those sources mirrored in the article. Black Mesa does not apppear to have those sources (or certainly enough to justify why the article shouldn't be merged into a more concise locations of half-life article), and so does not meet independent notability. -- Sabre (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  You do not appear to be disputing my point, which is that the subject is clearly notable, it just fails to assert its own notability. That's an argument to improve the article, not delete it. The notability of the subject is not in dispute here. Xihr (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep there are no "notability requirements for ficton." If you want secondary sources, start looking through these 92 sources. AFD is for articles you think should be deleted, not merged. This article is an acceptable spinout of the Half-Life (video game)#Setting section. And David Fuchs continued crusade to delete all things related to Half-Life makes it appear like he has an axe to grind. --Pixelface (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing is exempt from our notability process. That's why WP:FICT exists. If there weren't any notability requirements, the page wouldn't be there. I went through the links for the Half-Life reviews, and the only mention to Black Mesa is as the setting, not anything useful for developing an article from a real-world perspective. If there's no notability, it should not have a spin-out article full of original research, and its information should be limited to the setting part of Half-Life or as part of a collective article on Half-Life locations. It needs sources that do what is outlined here. -- Sabre (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: I am only concerned that the keywords 'Black Mesa' eventually reach here, as this was the only definition I wanted to see. Eddietoran (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm a little unclear on what you mean here. You want to keep the article because its on a disambiguation page? -- Sabre (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: As Masem has suggested, I'm working on a merged version for all the locations in my sandbox (while this article may potentially be able to portray notability, most of the others cannot). Don't expect it to be in a decent state for a while though, it probably won't be ready until after this AfD is finished. -- Sabre (talk) 09:21, 23 May 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. Not much participation, but the conclusion seems pretty clear.--Kubigula (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The article is a dicdef. The only source I have been able to find is this essay in TIME Magazine, which says: "Malay shopkeepers call children baby-jaan, or "life,"... ". I'm not sure that's enough for notability. Aecis 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete. I happen to know the language and can assure that I have never across such a ridiculous meaning. This is a complete hoax. Should have been deleted using speedy. Shovon (talk) 16:52, 17 May 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 - Nabla (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This actually appears to be a hoax. There is a Jez Green who is a tennis coach, and there was a Jez Bennett in 2004 who won a Racketlon tourney (I looked that up too, Racketlon is a sport, just not popular in the US) I downloaded the list of rankings from the Racketlon tournaments and there is a Marta Jez and a Stephan Jezler currently playing, but no Jez Green...the article's creator is JezzyJez, I suspect its a youngster with the same name as the tennis coach just having a go at us. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:V, sport he plays in might fail WP:N. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:34, 20 May 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Originally badly listed on another entry by Mattbroon. Here is his original text: a clear commercial exercise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbroon (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC) asenine 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. On the one hand, we have a source holding them up as representative of Portuguese pop. On the other, the source is in Portuguese and is at a blog site. I'm going to say it comes up barely short of verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I have removed the Publico reference, as it is only attributable in Portuguese. I have added radio play as this is attributed, and additional discography. Independent radio play, reviews and connections to other Portuguese artists show this is not a commercial exercise, but holds true on notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. There is not much English language material available on even well-known Portuguese pop music. This is my first article but I hope to add more English articles on other notable Portuguese music artists and media soon. Altlusa (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

— Altlusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Altlusa (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Altlusa (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, upon reconsideration. The band has appeared on a compilation CD, and sources are starting to improve. I'm thinking they need the benefit of the doubt on the question of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 22 May 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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Colin (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; spam for a portfolio analyst with a doctorate in mathematics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP I see nothing wrong with this. Mattbroon (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Mattbroon has been blocked today for two weeks for deliberate manipulation of the deletion process, see User talk:Mattbroon. Nsk92 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – I have added a notability statement and inline cite reference. Individual was one of the first to apply “Chaos Theory” to financial market. ShoesssS 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The added reference does not appear to support the statement added to the article, although registration is required to access the whole article. silly rabbit (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough evidence presented to satisfy the notability requirements under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. For WP:PROF one would have to see some substantial evidence of citability of his research in scholarly articles. I dod a bit of google and WoS searching but did not find much; with a common name like that it is hard to do filtering so perhaps something was inadvertently missed. Still, the keep proponents would have to present some positive and verifiable evidence of high citability here. The case for WP:BIO is even more problematic. I did not see any evidence of substantial coverage of him by independent third-party reliable sources (per WP:RS) as required to satisfy WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this person is notable per WP:PROF. silly rabbit (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis that first to apply “Chaos Theory” to financial market if that is a disputed fact please make that clear, if not then notable ... Note yet again AfD is not a clean up process. --Matilda 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While the cite provided does not support the assertion he was the first, it does state Mathematicians and securities analysts are applying chaos theory to financial market behavior to determine nonlinear trends which can be expressed as algorithms. Citibank's Andrew Colin has used neural networks to create a program that can earn 25% returns per year investing in the currency markets. ie it supports that he is using chaos theory and applying ti to the financial markets. I note that this is an article in The Economist - a notable journal to be discussing your work in for this field- definitely meets WP:RS. Some other cites include A 1994 book published by Wiley and Sons called Trading on the Edge search for Colin's name within the book and you will find him mentioned several times as being an authority in the field. That book is apparently cited 112 times according to Google Books result. Also different source but similar assertions Wired's Kevin Kelly reports on hacking financial markets as republished by Brown University for " Learning Dynamical Systems". At investment-performance.com the site introduces him as a moderator with "Andrew Colin is one of the world's leading authorities in performance analytics". His bio for that site is at He is a published author by Wiley Books: Fixed Income Attribution As above AfD is not for clean up it is to discuss whether an article should be kept. I can see no reason that he fails to meet Knowledge:Notability (academics). As per the cites I have quoted, Colin "is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." He is apparently "is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources." - eg The Economist . --Matilda 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Economist reference is OK as far as it goes as is the Trading on the Edge reference (although the 112 citations of the latter goes towards notability of the book but not of someone that the book cites), but there are hardly sufficient. One would need to see either a high number of citations by numerous different scholarly articles/books or substantial coverage by multiple sources in conventional media (Economist belongs to that category). This is how WP:PROF has been consistently applied up to know. Moreover, it is not really clear if the Economist reference goes towards notability per WP:PROF at all since it is not talking about original research but rather about applications of some mathemtical tools in financial markets. That seems to go more towards general notability per WP:BIO (but again, by itself, far from sufficient) rather than notability as an academic known for original scholarly research. Nsk92 (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I can't see how often his own book on Fixed Income is cited as it isn't on Google books but it get 1920 Google hits of which 206 seem to be unique I don't think that is worth much except perhaps to say it isn't totally obscure either. The Trading on the Edge book doesn't merely cite Colin but he is is one of the main contributing authora according to page xix - sorry my bad for not making this clear. I think the Wired ref republished by Brown university also helps the claim for notability - it mightn't be the strongest claim but I don't see the rationale for deletion either. --Matilda 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The standard fast tool to track citations in scholarly articles is GoogleScholar which shows just 1 citation. GoogleBooks also shows just 1 hit, the book in question itself. I'll check Web of Science and Scopus, but I doubt the results will be much different. Nsk92 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep given the information here, which does of course need to be added to the article. Perhaps the title should be changed to (financial analyst)--as the field in which he works and is notable, rather than just the field of his degree. DGG (talk) 21:48, 20 May 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 the lack of reliable and verifiable sources, indicating a lack of notability.

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

Largely unreferenced (WP:V), and there are no independent references (I removed various dead links to the "unofficial wiki" and to a closed Fotolog account which I presume had a scan of what was claimed to be a Spanish Rolling Stones article.) The multiple, third-party, reliable, non-trivial coverage required for WP:Notability guidlines are not present. Marasmusine (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, does not differ from random browser based game #35566. User:Krator (t c) 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, The site did have a scan of the Rolling Stone article. Just because a game isn't in every major gaming magazine doesn't mean it's not notable. If necessary, I can rewrite the article. Much of the information comes from the game itself, so if a rewrite is necessary if this survives AFD, I'd be happy to write one. Morhange (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  Here's the link to the article translated into English: . My concerns are: It doesn't explain who translated it, and multiple sources of coverage are preferred (Knowledge:N#cite_note-4 suggests that a mention in a broader article may be suitable.) Marasmusine (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete - the rolling stone article begins to help, but I'm not sure that the translation is reliable. and I don't think one article is enough by itself to demonstrate notability. if someone were to find something else, I'd welcome them to re-create the article. But I have to lean towards deletion. Randomran (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks multiple sources to establish notability. A single magazine article does not give broad enough scope for a video game - at least two are needed for the reception section, without which these is no article, merely a game listing. To this day nobody has stepped forward to fill the gap in MMOG coverage in-print and on-line, until someone decides to do so it will continue to be easier to source an article on the average flash game than a considerably more complex MMOG. Someoneanother 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Here's a news segment that was uploaded to Youtube. Dunno if this helps, and I can't speak Spanish (I think that's the language) here Morhange (talk) 20:57, 22 May 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Complete WP:OR, and a protologism. asenine 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NEO. Ros0709 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, or at most copy to Wiktionary. --Justpassin (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --KurtRaschke (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Move to wikitionary. Trees Rock 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary definition of an unsourced neologism. It should be moved to Wiktionary only if the word can be verified as being in use. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A as a dictionary definition, per WP:DICTDEF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- The article itself even states that it is a neologisms by saying: “…the word is limited to the inner suburbs of Sydney at the time of writing (May 2008), as shown here. ShoesssS 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing wrong with this article. It makes a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Mattbroon (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Mattbroon has been blocked on May 17, 2008 for two weeks for deliberate disruption of the deletion process. See User talk:Mattbroon for details. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete "Neologism" is being rather kind to it. Blueboy96 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - false definition. Elino was actually the capital of the imaginary country I created as a small child (Dinosh - and yes, the capital really was Elino - it was inland from the large port city of Ketien. And if you know the names of any cities to the northeast of Elino, you're part way to knowing my password!) But that definition of Elino is hardly worth an article either. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - a self-styled neologism, it's also not notable. End of story. Merenta (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unremarkable neologism. Lankiveil 09:02, 22 May 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 Speedily deleted. _GB 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Article does not list any sources and I cannot find any. Appears to fail WP:N. Biggest claim to notability appears to be a youtube video with 5000 views. TN‑X-Man 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Unnecessary nomination - article is currently up for CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Postpone discussion until after an uninvolved admin either speedily deletes the article or removes the speedy tag. --Justpassin (talk) 15:21, 17 May 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Runescape secret letters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge is not a how-to guide. Also, this is a complete hoax. No sources were cited. Holding the alt key while typing the numbers are enough, not pressing alt twice. Only Knowledge popped out on a hunt at Google. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Mr mark taylor (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced possible hoax article, not notable even if it were true. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:08, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Justpassin (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as gibberish/nonsense, wouldn't it have qualified for speedy?--Doug Weller (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I speedied a similar titled article about a month ago by the same user, but they must have put up a fight for this one. Mr mark taylor (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above Trees Rock 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft, per WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a "how to" one would not likely find in an encyclopedia or almanac. I could not find any sources with which to improve the article. Sources listed on the article are: "You can check this out and make sure that this is NOT a hoax by going to : Runescape.com and try to get some of the secret letters. Plus... haven't you ever wondered how people can make things like this: =Þ on Runescape? If you really don't believe me, then just try this and you will see that I wasn't lying." Thus, the article itself reads more like a talk page discussion. The article even includes a "Special Thanks" section that reads, "To the people who helped me find them and told me how to get them... thank you." I did fix the lead, but am unable to do much else. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Unsubstantiated, illogical article Artene50 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - at best, this is WP:Original research. Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as these instructions fail WP:NOT#GUIDE--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:52, 22 May 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.--Kubigula (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

A one line biography of an individual who does not meet Knowledge's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:BIO. No reliable sources found per searches on the article talk page. Prod was removed with the comment, "removed the need to delete as the information is accurate". Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Information may be accurate, but there are no sources listed other than personal websites. Without further information, article fails WP:N. TN‑X-Man 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Justpassin (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Gsearch not coming up with a whiff of notability, nor is notability claimed in article. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:38, 20 May 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 speedily deleted by criterion WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. --Moonriddengirl 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

No hits. None whatsoever. Possible hoax. asenine 11:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence that the subject even exists. I could not find any references to the supposed 2005 plane crash either. In any case, Fails WP:N. The creator keeps removing the AfD tag from the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence to support. If deleted, please also remove from List of airlines of the People's Republic of China. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Since the author has begun blanking the page, shouldn't someone stick a {{db-author}} tag on the article instead of reverting to restore the text? Deor (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. As a point of information, the article's creator has been blocked for 31 hours. Whether or not {{db-author}} is appropriate here, it seems to me that a speedy close for this AfD might be in order anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be a hoax, but if the author blanks the lot then as Deor says do the speedy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Deor. --Justpassin (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as {{db-author}}. The author did blank the page just before he was blocked. By the way, the Chinese name shown on this page translates, according to Babelfish, as "Chinese New China Aviation", with no reference to chewing gum. The name was probably just copied from China Xinhua Airlines as part of the hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP This article has historical importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbroon (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• G3 Pure vandalism from a blocked author. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:54, 17 May 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. Flowerparty 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Beat Goes On (Madonna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no source information that this song is to be released as a single, cover is fake (a fan made picture that has been around for months), and nothing of note to warrant an article JKW111 (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - until sources can be found for the song's release. As it stands the song isn't notable and there is no information on whether it is even going to be released. When information becomes available, then the article can be recreated. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:10, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and unsourced. I doubt that the single cover image is legit, too. - eo (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources to prove this is the next single. Paul75 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - interested editors may also want to check out Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Miles Away (Madonna song). - eo (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: There is nothing in WP:MUSIC requiring a song to be officially released as a single. There is a criterion covering charting on a national hits chart, which this has twice over.  Ravenswing  13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unclear whether 'national chart hit' in WP:MUSIC includes mere ranking of download popularity, or refers to official chart positions, which does require an official single. The charts referred to in the article are download tables only (from a single day, not even over the week) and not the official 'singles' charts for those countries as claimed. JKW111 (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C2.  Esradekan Gibb  14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Music#Songs. This song has no notability on its own yet. WP:Music#C2 applies to musicians/artists not songs. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfer68 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 May 2008

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The subject does not meet basic notability guidelines - there are no published sources available and the article appears to have used MySpace as its source for some of the content. It is vandalised fairly frequently, and I don't ever see the article's subject meeting the guidelines. Edit: Also does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines either. Sagaciousuk 11:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Danny (talk) 11:33, 17 May 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 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Not notable cricketer, he has failed to play a single first-class or List A match which is the notablity criteria for cricketers, see Knowledge:CRIN Jpeeling (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nn cricketer. No premier league appearances and at age 40 not likely to be any. fails per WP:ATHLETE.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, section on athletes. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. JH (talk page) 16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Johnlp (talk) 17:58, 17 May 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 as requested; the current redirect will be deleted. Waggers (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Latin and Ballroom Dance Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local association has 32 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, local dance club with no claim to or evidence of notability--Jac16888 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Article makes no claims of notability, no sources listed. TN‑X-Man 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - and it's a shame too, as the article is halfway decently written. The author just forgot step 1 to creating a Knowledge article: Make sure your topic is notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Changing rationale, it's still a delete, see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for seeing the potential in this article. I'm spending a lot of time at home trying to write good copy. New articles, especially written by newbies like me, take time to develop. I read in the wiki instructions that often times new articles usually start off really bad but it doesn't warrant the need for deletion. Sambahips (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable local organisation Kafka Liz (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP - Hi everyone, I'm the primary author as well as a newbie to the wiki system. The comments made above are very valid as this article speaks a need for notability. I intend to add references where needed to raise the credibility of the article. I am currently working with the Association's staff, who are overhauling their content management system. As such, they have some very important publications that would substantiate this wiki article. I am given access to these online publications and a permanenet link will be provided at the conclusion of this IT overhaul. I shun when Jac16888 called this Association a "local dance club", since this Association has a professional staff, annual activities and a donor base. This is not some frat or hobby, but is driven by a core staff with strong passion for this sport. I urge you to visit the BYU_Ballroom_Dance_Company page, we are very similar to this program. Thanks for all your comments. Sambahips (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, please bear with me as I'm trying to figure out how to add references to wiki articles. The syntax is very confusing and I'm still slowly learning how to use the system. Sambahips (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact that you say you are working with the associations staff gives you a pretty major conflict of interest, you shouldn't even be involved in this article, nor should they. Second, having professional staff, annual events and regulars doesn't make an organistaion notable, they need to be given coverage in independent 3rd party sources, which show notability. As for the BYU Ballroom Dance Company, it shows masses of notability. Its over 50 years old, has toured all over the world, competed at an international level, won a lot of awards, and all of this is sourced.--Jac16888 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let it be known, that my allegiance is to the advance of this sport as an olympic sport, its only a recognized sport, not a medal sport as of yet. I am showing interest in this Association because I believe they have what it takes to become a strong organization overtime, dedicated towards developing strong competitors. "Working" with the association means I initiated communication with them regarding the whereabouts of their publications and why their website has been down all of a sudden in the past three weeks. Their website contains their competition results and the awards they've won and where they've toured in the United States. Also, FYI, this association competed against BYU dancers and placed higher in several different categories, yet this association is only a few years young vs BYU's 50 year program as you mentioned; all this is sourced. This is not some monkey-club but a strong program that has proven itself. Sambahips (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice for a disinterested third party who does not have a conflict of interest to recreate an improved article per Sambaship's comments. When User:Sambahips has a well-referenced article ready for publication, he should create it as User:Sambahips/Latin and Ballroom Dance Association and post a comment on Knowledge talk:WikiProject Dance as described in Knowledge:FAQ/Business. Let someone from that project actually create the article. If nobody from that project replies to his request within a week, I'll take a look at it. However, if the references are paper-based, hosted on a non-third-party source, or hosted on a blog, fan-site, or other unreliable source, it is very unlikely any editor will approve the article. The same goes if the references are mere lists, such as a newspaper that lists all meetings and classes in its local community. Oh, Sambahips, you should put a note on your user page clearly outlining your conflict of interest per Knowledge:FAQ/Business. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update - if you are not working for them, but have only asked them for information, then you may not have a conflict of interest overall. Still, I would recommend drafting the article as a sub-page of your user page, then, after it is well-referenced and its notability will not be questioned, WP:MOVE it to the main article space. You should also ask the people at WikiProject Dance to comment on it before you make the move. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Davidwr, I think that is a reasonable suggestion about moving the article under my userpage until more sources can be found. The article is no where near being finished and there are more information that would lead to greater credibility, including third party sources from trustworthy sites. Now I just need to figure out how to move a page. Thanks. Sambahips (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since Samba has moved the page to his userspace, can someone delete Latin and Ballroom Dance Association, since it now innappropriately redirects to userspace. --Jac16888 (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DON'T DO THAT until the close of the AfD. See below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the afd is now past 5 days, it can be deleted--Jac16888 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If an admin reads this, he can close the AfD and a minute later delete what's left in mainspace. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• SPEEDY CLOSE as "voluntarily userfied." I have removed the AfD tag from the Userfied version and replaced the remaining redirect with an explanation of what is going on. I also restored the AfD tag to the mainspace pseudo-article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 22 May 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, A7 with a sprinkling of salt. The article text was substantively similar to previous versions that were speedied, making it obvious that the author of the latest version was a sock of the original author, Nealante (talk · contribs). Both accounts blocked. Blueboy96 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable artist/producer who doesn't meet either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Article was originally created by the article's subject and has been CSDed several times over the last few days. After repeated recreation and removal of CSD and autobiography tags the identical article has been recreated by a SPA user, Spartin (talk · contribs). The article makes many claims of collaborations but supplies no references to back them up. "Nealante" achieves 75 gHits. WebHamster 09:55, 17 May 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 The consensus has spoken, all hail the consensus. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This is scope creep without a doubt. College football is not professional football, and articles on college football coaches with no independent sources really don't come close to satisfying the sourcing and notability requirements for living individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

KEEP (again) This is the third time that this article has been nominated for deletion. The first two times the consensus was KEEP, why should it change now?

• "Scope Creep" doesn't apply--"it's not pro football", of course not. That's why it's a part of Knowledge:WikiProject College football.
• See previous discussions on this article at Talk:Oscar Dahlene
• See similar discussions on similar articles with consensus of "Keep"
  • Mike Gottsch
  • Oscar Dahlene
  • Fred Clapp
  • Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton
• No new reason for deletion has been proposed

There is no new argument for deletion here, and all of the old ones still stand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think he's a living individual (given that he coached the 1910 season) but there are no independent sources, and every article needs those. Just because some articles in a class are notable does not mean they all are. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  And consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Yes, consensus can change, but it usually doesn't change overnight--or even in a few months. However, editors can become weary from multiple rapid-fire deletion proposals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Does Ottawa University have a historically important program, or something? I'd say any coach at a big-name school would be automatically notable, but an article like this might be pushing things a bit. Zagalejo^^^ 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Response You can read about it at Ottawa University Braves and learn about how they have been playing football since 1891 and their state-of-the-art Peoples Bank Field, credited as the best small-college football venue in the country. The school was a charter member of the Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference and the forerunner of that conference was the first group to adopt a definite set of rules and regulations (previously schools set their own rules and you played by the rules of the home field school). As school sizes grew, the conference split to form the "Big Six" (now Big 12 and "Little Six" (now KCAC). Glad you asked.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• So, were there any notable players on the team? Did the conference receive any attention outside of the Kansas area? I generally fall on the inclusion side of these debates, but I'm still not sure about this. There are lots of high school coaches who are more demonstrably notable than this guy. Zagalejo^^^ 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Then go write an article about the high school coaches. Joe Paterno is more notable too, but that doesn't disqualify Jerry Kill.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there's actually something to say about Jerry Kill. What about my first two questions? Zagalejo^^^ 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Confused What were the first two questions? Would you mind repeating?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Were there any notable players on the team? Did the team (or conference as a whole) receive any attention outside of the Kansas area? If you can show that Ottawa had a reputation as one of the nation's elite teams, then I'd support keeping the article, even in the absence of biographical details about the coach. If not, though, I think we're going way below the common threshold for notability. We could still mention the coach somewhere else, but I don't see the need for an individual article about him. Zagalejo^^^ 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying!

1. Were there any notable players on the team?: I was unable to find any 1910 Ottawa football players in the NFL, but the NFL didn't form until 1920... I'll keep digging, but that's a tall order!
2. Did the team (or conference as a whole) receive any attention outside of the Kansas area?:Yes, both actually. The conference was the first conference to adopt a uniform set of rules. The school was one of 17 that, at the time of the big "rules changes" discussions to make football safer, wanted to actually cease football all together and replace it with Rugby or Soccer! (crazy, huh?) Along with BYU, Stanford, Missouri... it was in an old NYT article with a link I've sadly misplaced...

Does that help, at least for now?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh... I guess I'll go with weak keep. It's harmless, it's been expanded with actual biographical details, and it's potenitally useful for research. Plus, there's precedent for keeping articles like this. Eventually, we should have a broader discussion about notability for small college coaches, but until that happens, we might as well just leave the article be. Zagalejo^^^ 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — No reason has been given to override precedent, therefore, the article should remain. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Miserably fails even the most open, general notability guidelines. Zero news sources available to establish notability. Celarnor 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Neutral Sorry Paul, but a NAIA coach from 1910 isn't notable. We should consolidate all the coaches with the short information we will ever obtain about them on the football article. MECU≈talk 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's say for a moment that I would agree that a coach from 1910 would not be notable, but the coach from 1909 might be and the coach from 1911 might also be. Now we're working on the project, we then find out that the two notable coaches get big articles but the little old 1910 coach does not. Now we've got a vacant space (i.e. a redline), and researchers may begin to wonder "Was football not played that year at the school? Why not?" or "We see that the school played that year, who was the coach?" and then we would find that notability could indeed arrive from not doing a superior job. Why was that coach's record different? At that point, the absence would become more of an issue than the presence. Completeness can be a very good thing... just something to think about.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment And, of course, there's the purpose of cross-reference research. I've added the standard game table for the one season he coached, including scores and opponents. Now suppose that someone is researching University of Kansas football, and runs into the 1910 season when KU was 6-1-1, and wants to know what the opponents were like and how those coaches performed for the season. It's possible this way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've changed to Neutral since there are many more references added now, but like some of the people below, most of the article isn't about the coach but about the season (his playing time the exception), for which the information could be better placed on "Early years of XXX football". But with the references and player information that couldn't belong elsewhere, and expansion beyond what I ever thought it could be, I'm torn. I could see the article being deleted, but kept as well. MECU≈talk 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. As a stand alone article this isn't appropriate because of the reasons given by others above. This is the type of information that would be good to include in an article called Ottawa University Braves football or the like. Good Ol’factory 09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The first challenge with thast is this school has had 29 football coaches and a united page of all coaches would be rather clumsy. The second challenge is that the pages and information would be (at least I think) less likely to grow and interlinked. For example, Jerry Kill and Harold Elliott started out as just such a single page, and as research blossomed, they grew to robust pages of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both Kill and Elliott have coached NCAA D1 schools. Information on them actually exists. It seems that all we know about the Ottawa coaches (with a few exceptions) are their coaching records. Zagalejo^^^ 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Good Ol’factory. I'd also like to note that, of the entire article, only the first sentence (apparently unsourced) is actually about the subject of the article. The rest is about the performance of the team he coached as part of his career, and properly belongs in (for example) a history of that team. Jakew (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fairly or unfairly, head coaches are judged by the success and failure of the teams they coach. This judgement based on their record extends to the hiring entity, the media, the fans, and the opponents.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• That may be so, and it's doubtless true of people who work in many fields. However, it raises serious questions about whether the subject is notable independent of the team, or whether the team (including its history) is notable, and the coach warrants brief mention in this wider context. Jakew (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"*Comment Normally, teams are historically viewed by who the head coach was during that time (under "this coach" or "that coach") rather than a season by season basis.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update: I've been asked to review the changes made to the article, and I'm afraid that my position hasn't changed. Seraphimblade's comments of 13:55, 20 May 2008 sum up the problem well, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not opposed, however, to merging some of the material into a "history of XXX football" article. Jakew (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article is not even really about the subject (more about the team's performance, which should be covered in the team's article), and there don't appear to be significant secondary sources available to correct the problem. No independent sources, no article. Seraphimblade 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was asked to reevaluate the article, and have done so. While it is true that an additional factoid (he was a college president for a few years too) and some sources have been added, it appears to be window dressing. The sources either (in a couple cases) have links which do not even work, and for those that do, mention the subject only in passing or trivially, or are primary. No substantial independent sources, no article. So to be clear, I stand by my rationale of delete for the version of the article as of this writing, or any other, as it appears as far as I can find, substantial independent sourcing on this subject simply does not exist. A bunch of Wikiproject members liking it does not change that. Seraphimblade 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I found the one broken link to Emporia Gazette, simply a misspelling. What other links did not work? Everything links fine when I attempt on my PC...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment The question of broken links was not my main concern, and yes they all work now. My main point was that the "sources" are trivial, passing mentions, in several cases only name drops, in others offering only a sentence or so with no substance. Substantial sourcing is required to support a separate article, not just "the guy got mentioned here or there." If you could show me a source that goes into substantial depth about the man, not the team, I would agree that a separate article on the man rather than a brief mention in the team's article is warranted. Otherwise, we should follow our sources' lead, and do as they do, mentioning him only briefly in context of the team. Seraphimblade 07:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment I wasn't exactly looking for you to repeat your opinion again, I just wanted to know what links you found that were broken so they could be fixed. But thanks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Yes, I am a member of the Wikiproject on College Football, so my opinion could be construed as biased. But, I am a member of the project because I am a fan of college football and I love learning everything I can about it....I even like learning about the coaches of the smaller schools. To fans of the sport, these coaches are notable. I would hate to see Knowledge become a place where we can't learn about past coaches. One of the problems is that Knowledge is geared more for the present, considering most sources come in the form of web site links. And naturally, there isn't going to be much available on these coaches in that form. But there are a lot of people who want to learn about these coaches. Seancp (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New Information After further research, I have learned that he was a member of the 1908 9-0 undefeated and 1909 8-1 teams at the University of Kansas. To top it off, he later became the president of Pritchett College in Missouri, and apparently this school's first president used the facilities to complie major work on the history of the discovery of the Great Red Spot.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep:Some things to consider":

• Oscar Dahlene was not a NAIA coach since it was founded 1937
• Sub dividing of NCAA did not happen around late 1930’s meaning he was coaching at the highest level of College Football at the time.
• In the late 1890’s and early 1900’s teams we considered major powers were playing and losing to other schools that we now considered small college. For example Ohio State played and lost to Oberlin, Wittenberg and Ohio Wesleyan. West Virginia played and lost to West Virginia Wesleyan. Kentucky played and lost to Transylvania and Centre. If you look at the article Ottawa University played Kansas the year Dahlene coached them.
• Why is Oscar Dahlene less significant than Arthur Smith (an article I wrote)? Smith only won one game and that was against a club team. Was it because the administration many years latter decided to play football at the highest level? Is it because 50 or so years later Maimi was able to hire several coaches that ended up in the College Football Hall of Fame so it became know as the Cradle of Coaches? I would guess that 99.999% of Miami University fans would not even know Smith coached at the school.
• Why is Harry Jacoby a significant coach? He coached Boise State when they were a junior college and had a career losing record. If Ottawa University decided to move up to Division 1A? Is Oscar Dahlene now a significant coach because some administration 100 years later made a decision to emphases football?09er (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Other things need deleted too is not an argument that this does not. Seraphimblade 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I crossed out any of my above commit that deals with that. I still stand by my keep for the fact that in 1908 and 1909 he was playing at the highest level of American College Football and in 1910 he was coaching at the highest level of American College Football.09er (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hope that whoever looks at this now and sees a slight favor of delete realizes that most of those delete votes came before a lot of the new information was added about Dahlene becoming a college president and being a key member of the 1908/1909 KU football teams. Some people came in and made delete comments, then have not returned since the article has significantly improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Most of the new sources still miserably fail, but collectively, I think they assert some tiny modicum of notability; enough to keep it and hope it gets improved with some more RS so it doesn't get AfD'd again. In its current state, it's still a deletion waiting to happen. Celarnor 17:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment As a general comment, please read Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Repeated nominations, I thought it might apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Mild form of WP:Hey Article now can be said to "come close to satisfying the sourcing and notability requirements for living individuals". Other stuff existing does seem to address the concern that "College football is not professional football" as far as how we treat it here. No concerns left. Seems a perfectly fine encyclopedia article to me. Mind you, I'm looking at a version only two added refs on from the version Celarnor is looking at above, so I guess YMMV. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't like forum shopping; if this received a Keep twice before I don't see this as a valid nomination, but I trust Guy so he must have some reason. From the discussion it sounds like the article has improved during this AfD. I also question the implication that it fails BLP when the man must be dead by now, and if he isn't then that's probably notable. Assuming good faith on some of the citations, they appear to be from independent verifiable sources. Clearly there are a lot of primary sources cited to document the content, but that should not detract from the notability, as long as we have adequate recognition from a sufficient number of secondary sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been to AfD before, as I understand it, just to be clear. I think the position is that it was nommed for speedy twice and not taken to AfD in light of arguments that it was a valid stub, met wp:bio, and accorded with a consensus demonstrated at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch. McDonald went to ANI to complain about administrator behavior rising out of this article, so you may wish to view the nom as a slap on the wrist for doing so, or perhaps that's just where JzG came across it. In any case, it picked up a few delete votes based on the state of the article at the time, so seems a valid enough nom. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment not sure if it was a speedy delete or whatever before nominated, but you can read about it at Talk:Oscar Dahlene. Although the above "special contributions" supports the same position I do on this article, I want to clarify that it was not me and I would rather people register when making comments and changes. It's probably an oversight on the part of the editor, but I like being clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What's an oversight? Registration isn't necessary to comment here, nor should it be. I don't have an account and never did. No need for paranoia.86.44.28.186 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not paranoid... it's just that sometimes other people are. No worries!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep so far we have consistently held college presidents to be notable. Even of small colleges. DGG (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment We've had a lot of good discussion on this one. Are we ready to come to a conclusion on this discussion? It's been over 5 days. Reference Deletion Discussion for policy. We have 7 editors in favor of "keep", 4 that support "delete", and two that modified their position of "delete" to either "Weak Keep" or "Neutral". I know that we're not looking for a "popular vote" to decide consensus, I just wanted to summarize the results.

I propose that in light of the discussions, the existing content changes, and the two previous discussions on notability that a consensus of KEEP has been reached. We should then keep the article and remove the AFD tag.

Any objections or discussion?? Anyone think that a consensus has not been reached, or that my summarization is incorrect or that I missed something?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 22 May 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 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ted Mann (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable journalist. Satisfies none of the criteria for notability mentioned for journalists at WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Also orphaned; only links are from respective dab page and some misguided links from some NYPD Blue pages intended for a different Ted Mann who writes TV episodes. —97198 talk 13:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. An article in the New York Times notwithstanding, all his main gigs are non-notable, small local newspapers and magazines. No references, just a promo link to a resume/CV, and his blog. I don't see anything establishing notability here. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete A vanity article (check the name of the guy who created it and compare it to the name of Ted Mann's blog!). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Another non-notable journeyman journalist. Doesn't even have a book out. Not a noted author of any sort. Qworty (talk) 05:19, 20 May 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Article fails WP:NN, WP:VER, WP:OR, and several other basic guidelines. Specifically:

• It provides absolutely no sources to support the use of the term "Celtic Affluenza" in the purported context.
• Even if it did, the notability of the term/concept is unasserted, and is flagged as such for several months.
• A Google search returns ZERO results confirming the use of the term in any context. (All search hits are for this Knowledge page and mirrors).
• The article appears purely as Original Research in "support" of a similarly problematic Spam article - also flagged for AfD.
• etc.

Guliolopez (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NEO is enough for me here. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - A portmanteau of a portmanteau? Delete per WP:NEO. TN‑X-Man 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable double-portmanteau neologism. No sources, and it is unlikely that there are any, reliable or not. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:21, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:OR, WP:NEO; the list goes on and on. Doesn't meet WP:N so deletion is appropriate. Merenta (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's reasons. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I tagged it originally, should have nominated it earlier.AleXd (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm a Celt (Welsh) and currently have a cold. Am I suffering from Celtic Influenza? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:44, 20 May 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.