Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Parrots

First, it was in Portugal. I've translated it. And I see, that it is an advertisement of a Biomapa project! So it fails WP:NOT. I think it is needed to be deleted - Wikipedia is not for adverts! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Same reasons as above. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This is about a scientific project called BIOMAPA at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, so it is not a commercial enterprise and the article cannot be seen as an advertisement (nothing is for sale here). However, the project is still in its infancy and it is doubtful if it is developped to a point so that it deserves a Wikipedia article. If so, it should be created under the name BIOPAMA, preferably first at the Portuguese Wikipedia, and a more encyclopedic description should be given. The list of species is not informative, if at all, it should be incorporated into the Wikispecies: project, although most if not all of the species mentioned are already listed there. Andreas ^(T) 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uses first person (red flag for spam). But whether or not it is intended as an ad, it does nothing but duplicate information already found elsewhere in the encyclopedia (except for the organization, of which the article only states the existence and purpose). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the list of species found in a country seems like it might be a perfectly valid article, no matter whether it is derived from another free project--I think its not a free project but Im not an expert about this. There is no exactly equivalent category., And yes, we should . do an article on the project, but that's a separate question. I've notified WikiProject birds for a more informed opinion than I can give on the appropriateness of this article. DGG (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a liost of birds for every country on Earth, so this doesn't add anything that List of birds of Brazil doesn't already cover. We don't need separate lists for every family or other taxa. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Sabine's Sunbird Shyamal (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like a good list that is useful to Wikipedia.S w i r l e x^{The Barnstar Giver} —Preceding comment was added at 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic article that deals with the Project Biomapa. Even as a list of parrots found in Brazil it is completely misleading and of no use: It includes numerous species not found in Brazil (Ara glaucogularis, Gypopsitta haematotis, Gypopsitta pulchra, Gypopsitta pyrilia, Hapalopsittaca amazonina, Melopsittacus undulatus, etc, etc), excludes numerous species found in Brazil (e.g. not even *one* species of Touit or Forpus on the list), and use out-dated taxonomy for others (e.g. Pionopsitta vulturina). So, check List of birds of Brazil instead, which even is divided into subsections (direct link to the parrots), and at least is (fairly) accurate. Rabo3 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of birds of Brazil as per SS, this is how we have done all birds articles. Links can go to a subheading within that article so nothing is lost. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]

Careful with the merge idea: Why merge a page that is loaded with mistakes (as per my previous comment) with a page that essentially is correct? Better just delete it (or perhaps just change it to a redirect to the parrot section in the List of birds of Brazil). Rabo3 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Par above concerns that this article provides incorrect information. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Casliber's argument, and following precedent. --BizMgr (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to merge incorrect information into correct information that is already complete anyway? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedying. --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian socialism

Fails WP:NPOV and possibly WP:NOR. Reads like an essay. Only source is a blog and the text seems to have been copied from it. See here. Ascidian (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio.--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. Black Kite 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballacraine railway station

Delete 5 hints in Google search when searching as Ballacraine railway station [1] and 5 hints when searching as Ballacraine Halt [2]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:GOOGLEHITS. Google's usefulness in history searches is limited. The best quality source I found [3] points offline to books for further reading. It also indicates that the station saw it main use during the 1870s. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A place where trains stopped for a couple of brief periods in history. Not ever claimed to be an important rail station or to have had a notable structure. Nothing at Google Newsw archives or Google scholar, and even the rail fancier site found by Gene93k wasn't sure just where on the map it had been. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability does not expire. All railway stations are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Claims like "All X'x are inherently notable" should be supported by guidelines or AFD precedents which are overwhelming. In this case the place is described as a "stop." Was there a building there? Where are sources illustrating it or discussing it? A place known only because a train stopped there for two brief periods in history sounds inherently NON-notable. If it was not notable when it was in service as a stopping place for trains, then the permanency of notability is irrelevant. Edison (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of multiple third party sources can be located about the subject. RFerreira (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even if it's really non-notable, redirecting to Isle of Man Railway stations#The Peel Line (Closed) makes more sense to me than deleting it. cab (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability doesn't expire as Eastmain said. The source found by Fene93k verifies this station was in use in the 19th century. --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to the railway for the present. This stub is too brief to survive at present, but the practice seems to be developing of having an article on many stations. When there is at least a short paragraph of information, the aricle could be reinstated. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query - something appears to be wrong with the AFD notice on the article: can some one please check the nomination has been done correctly? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Practice has been 100% consistent that all railroad stations, present and past are notable. I thought this strange at first, but it turns out there are always references. Might be more useful to get them than to argue here about it. DGG (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect Using Google as a source is unreliable when referencing information about islands such as the Isle of Man. As a resident of the Island I am fully aware that there is limited information online that Google Bots can pick up links from. I can cite numerous books that make reference to this station (at least 5 in my personal possesion reference it). I have made a couple of minor edits to the page and placed an external link to a page that includes a photo of the halt and a map. It should be noted that only the termini and significant stops had buildings and/or platforms, that's just the way the railways was built and run- eg Castletown station(the island's former Capital and Santon staation had platforms built within last 5 years. Ripsaw (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7Seas

Delete fails WP:N, third party reliable source proving notability is lacking. Google search gives only 10 hits [4]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Otolemur has failed to show how it fails WP:N. The evidence and reasoning provided by Otolemur is a paltry one google search string, based on a narrow search terminology that doesn't even take into consideration how the group in question is actually spelt. Searching for the terms like - 7seas terrorism - brings hundreds of hits. The article meets notability and links to articles from the Seattle Times, CBC canada, CQ Homeland security magazine, and the wave magazine. One of the members, Shannen Rossmiller, has hundreds of articles also, and has been mentioned widely in the news. The article certainly meets notability, but definitely needs clean up. --Evud (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shannen Rossmiller. There's nothing out there that mentions the group in any other context but a profile or interview of her. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling shows that the name shown gives far more hits to an Indian game development company; using the full name produces only three hits that don't trace back to us. Also need to delete Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems, the successor organization, which gives only three pages of hits, all but two or so being directory listings. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move, replace with disambig Checking shows that there are many real sources using "7-Seas Global Intelligence Group", which should be real name of article. Googling for "7seas" produces a huge range of hits including especially a prob. notable Indian game development company. Mangoe (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea actually what to do. It looks like a non notable organization, so my first idea would be to delete. But the problem lies in the different names of the organization, making it harder to judge it accurately. If kept, merge with Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems which is almost completely the same article, and is about the (current name of) the same subject (and which gets a not so impressive 2 Google News hits[5], where only the first one could be considered "in-depth"). Fram (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel guilty about deleting becasue none of the mergers really work. Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems is a new group and Shannen Rossmiller used to part of the group. The group - on its own - apparently fails WP:ORG and I even suspect that this group has disbanded. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amateur terrorism experts = amateurs. We need to see some significance to this group, some testimonial given by the world it has affected, some measure that people are going about, reading references to "7seas" and needing to go to Wikipedia to find out what it is. Wikipedia is not a business listing, not a testimonial to everything that exists, and not an advocacy forum. It cannot legitimate or diminish anything. It is an encyclopedia that chooses to explain the world to the world by contextualizing elements that have had a clear effect. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Castellanos

Delete No WP:RS. No hit in Google news search[6]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Reads like a puff piece. No assertion of notability, or even of notable achievements in politics or law. Previously speedied as a copyvio. --SSBohio 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralphie aversa

Delete fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually 833 hits for "Ralphie aversa" WBHT on English Google, however, most are unreliable sources, not to mention definite COI - see here. Jeodesic (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, but Jtrainor is right when he points out that there's no deadline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YMT-05 Hildolfr

Delete fails WP:FICT. Also question of WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gillyweed (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a to say that the creation of this article may be in violation of the ArbCom injunction. --Farix (Talk) 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N and WP:FICT. Also please read the injunction regarding such articles while arbcom is on progress. This one was created after the injunction took force, and its creation is as much a violation as would be mass deletion/redirection. Edison (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text of injunction For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. Where does it say one cannot create them? DGG (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Do you agree that any articles which were created after the injunction was issued are fair game for AFD, in any case, since they were not "currently existing" at the time the injunction was issued? Edison (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and tag for expansion It was only created two days ago. Give it time. It's rather a little bitey to nom it only ten minutes after creation.

Though it is my personal belief that it is probably better to merge it. Jtrainor (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Lines (novel)

Delete fails WP:BK. Google search shows many hits, but no reliable source establish its notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searching doesn't yield anything that would demonstrate notability by WP:BK —αlεx•mullεr 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete: recreation of AfD-deleted article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Killer

Delete No WP:RS. Should be deleted per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, recreation of an article deleted through AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 11:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, doesn't seem sufficiently notable as a corporation —αlεx•mullεr 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARO Technologies

I previously deleted this as db-spam, it's been recreated and now reads less like spam, but still doesn't demonstrate notability unless a precedent has been set that being listed on the Nasdaq is notable. ^Khukri 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; tech businesses need to show fairly strong notability at the outset. They still refer to their products as solutions and make unreferenced claims that their products make it possible that production errors . . . can be detected much faster than with common quality assurance, so it still reads like spam to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Publically traded companies listed on NASDAQ are likely to be sufficiently notable. Plenty of good hits on Google News[7], including Forbes, CNNMoney, Fox Business etc. The promotional parts of the article need to be cleaned up, but the company meets CORP.--Kubigula (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ward

Non-notable living person; appears to be self-promotion. This article was tagged does not cite any references or sources in April 2007. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notabilty grounds per nom. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Guliolopez (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as G11 (advertising). No non-primary sources, reads like spam. Black Kite 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algorego

Delete fails WP:N. 160 hits in google search. [8]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently Google gives 187 hits for "Algorego".(2008.02.22) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viesturz (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battery (software)

Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not necessarily with prejudice: fails the business and product notability guidelines, no references other than to the publisher's own site. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BeoCom

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see some coverage in design mags. I'm not at all familiar with the product but it appears that it may be notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a range of articles over several years. Mangoe (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in the International Herald Tribune and New York Times. Jfire (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Jfire. --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable product, design has been talked about in many places. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Assassin

Delete fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS, WP:N and perhaps even WP:OR. -- Koert van der Veer (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD notice has been removed by the article creator (with the claim the result was keep). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored the notice and told the user not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a near-candidate for speedy deletion. Not much of a claim of notability in this article. Needs published third-party sources to establish notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "up and coming" is a reliable flag for non-notability. JohnCD (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, deleted by Od Mishehu at 14:16, 20 February 2008. Non-deleting admin closure. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casseva

Delete fails WP:CORP. No third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article only cites the company website (which happens to have an Alexa rank of almost 2.5 million) and press releases. In any case, a company established last year and with 20 employees (and with no other claim of notability) is an obvious candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shine honesty

Not particularly notable as far as I can tell and is little more than a tracklisting, which is discouraged by WP:MUSIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - good luck with that. The fact is that almost no album deletion AfD ever succeeds, regardless of what WP:MUSIC says. (And when the AfD is closed, somebody needs to move the article to Shine Honesty with the capital 'H'.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a link to a dallas observer review and cleaned the article up a bit including links to wiki pages for the record label etc. agreed that the article should be titled with capital H Joe Wallace (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe, I've asked on your talk page but not had a reply, so I'll ask again here: are you related to or friends with User:Cameron McCasland? You seem only to edit articles that mention him as a subject, as this one does. I'm worried that there may be a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I must have missed it. While I have met Cameron I would not say I know him. In the same way I have met president bush, roger clemens, etc. He is a member of several other boards including the Rondo Hatton original site. Again sorry for the tardiness of my reply. Joe Wallace (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - studio albums are usually considered notable if the band is/was notable. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other support for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brynjar Aa

Delete Reluctantly nominating for deletion. The article was created by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, who is an excellent wikipedia editor, and created many articles in various topics. But unfortunately this article do not meet the general notability criteria. Lack of award, or third party sources, hence fails WP:BIO. A google search gives 78 hits[9], but do not prove notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources appear to be available in Norweigan. ([10]) Catchpole (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was created when I was going through a missing list beginning with aa. There isn't practically any web info on him I agree but that isn't the first time google hasn;t come up with the goods. I can't emphasis strongly enough that google shouldn't be relied on for notability as it is grossly uneven. I've asked Punkmorten if he has any idea of notability and if any of the libraries in Norway would have anything on him. I;m certain alot could be written about him using a Norwegian source but as it is it isn't very useful. I'd hoped it would have been expanded by now but I've noticed most of the Norwegian articles are still stubs sub stubs even because very few people can translate from Norwegian. So if we could wait until he replies. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait a minute. I;ve found that if you type in Brynjar Å a lot more comes up. This could easily be translated from Norwegian ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a search on Bibsys shows that about a dozen different works of him have been published, all by established publishing houses, including Aschehoug, The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. His work has been reviewed in Dag og Tid and Dagbladet. The common spelling, btw, seems to be "Aa," though it's entirely possible that writers assume that this is a concession to old ASCII. He's clearly notable as an exponent of Norwegian popular culture, controversial as his writing might be. I'm not crazy about him, but that has nothing to do with notability. --Leifern (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my nomination per above comments. I will like to see the article being improved. I think members of WikiProject Norway can help in translating source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd like to see somebody expand it first. I think this afd was valid given the current situation . ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the sources provided above, I think the article can prove significance, which was not at the time of nomination. But the problem being faced here is translation into English. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, as with thousands of others. I have proposed some kind of Wiki Translation - for the wikimedia project to venture into free translation in tens of languages. As yet Jimbo hasn't responded to me, but for me inability to translate from the less common language sis one of the biggest obstacles to universal information on wikipedia. I;m think ing about making a formal proposal. I strongly think the wiki project needs to do something about developing this as an educational tool ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into this issue before - where possible and all else being equal, English language sources are preferable. But foreign-language sources are entirely acceptable to establish notability, provided they might other RS criteria (of course). There are plenty of editors who are proficient in Norwegian. A better idea than a translation facility is to have a board for each non-English language consisting of editors who volunteer to confirm the veracity of the sources and accuracy of the translation when this comes up. I put a half hour of edits into this article, but then it got lost due to an edit conflict. I'll pick up again later, but now I have to get back to the work people pay me for. --Leifern (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a taskforce for translation is needed. It is especially important while dealing with articles related to non-English speaking countries. It can be proposed as a separate formal policy, or voluntarily. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jfire (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Age Of The Understatement

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A side project of Alex Turner (musician) from the Artic Monkeys is guaranteed to receive wide coverage. I'd wager the NME would be a reasonable starting point. Catchpole (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep How does this violate WP:MUSIC? The band features a member of a very popular band (meets #6). The album is a different story. It's a bit too crystal bally now, but it's being released a few months from now, has been recorded and is planned for release, unlike several other pages on future albums that are filled with speculation and OR. I'd say that this meets (but just barely) WP:N Doc Strange (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage of this in reliable sources for it to fulfil requirements of WP:MUSIC, and a release date has been announced. I've added two references to the article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would you delete this? It's a major release, so even if you deleted the article it would reappear once the album comes out. Laynethebangs (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the others that this is a major release, with references in reliable publications. Would also note that suggestion for deletion was added in the middle of the original writer's editing of the text, while they were fixing errors in formatting etc. KatjaKat (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and article is tagged with {{unreferenced}} —αlεx•mullεr 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad To The Bone (Running Wild Single)

Delete explicitly fails WP:MUSIC. One hint in Google search - wikipedia [11]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Running Wild are a note-worthy band. A google search using an article title unique to Wikipedia for a single released in 1989 is not the first or only way I'd have thought of to check for further sources. Catchpole (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I have made a mistake in google search. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This searching gives many more hits[12]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But still sources are lacking. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, since there's no consensus on the redirect target. Wizardman 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Identity

Delete fails WP:CORP. No WP:RS given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Culture of the United States, per - 10:42, 28 July 2006 JLaTondre (Talk | contribs) (RFD closed as "keep with retarget"). Without prejudice to future creation of a properly referenced and well-written national identity article for the US. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Staples Inc. following take-over. Reuters , Business Wire. Catchpole (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amoi Mobile Phones

Delete fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does indeed seem to fail WP:CORP, and there doesn't seem to be anything of note through searching —αlεx•mullεr 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. It's a copyvio from [13]. -Splash - tk 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Professional Coders

Delete no WP:RS, fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article asserts notability (65,000 members). A search shows hits of currently active chapters in several cities (for example, Kansas City chapter has a full calendar of events for 2008). JamesMLane t c 11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While possibly important due to the national and international scope, actual Notability isn't shown by way of independent sources about the organization. What i found is mostly press releases. The article is orphaned, so maybe this should just be mentioned at Medical coder, the stub article about the profession related to Medical classification. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —αlεx•mullεr 10:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is grossly inadequate. However, medical coding, although stupefyingly uninteresting even to most of those who must deal with it, is importnat in high-profile controversies, particularly with regard to disputes between health care consumers and insurers who dispute liability for services, but also with regard to service outsourcing. This credentialing organization apparently exists and has a significant membership. What remains are legitimate criticisms of article quality, which call for further work on, not removal of, the article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bellarmine University Radio

Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Bellarmine University. Not independently notable per WP:WEB or WP:ORG, but verifiable enough to earn a mention under "Activities". • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basel Sinfonietta

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. Not much of a stub, it is true. But this small symphony orchestra has a discography that would appear to meet WP:MUSIC. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a poor stub, so poor that notability is difficult to determine from it. As I do not read German, I cannot read their newletter, but googling suggests it to be a professional orchestra. In which case it is certainly notable. Since it appears to operate only in German speaking areas, the lack of English sources is unsurpising. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Step hen 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Idols Fall

Delete explicitly failsWP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been a bit busy of late to tidy it up, but I believe that they are a notable new band. Making a big impact, quickly gaining media attention and impressing crowds on a big tour. They are currently writing new material but shortly taking a break whilst supporting Anti Flag a long standing band. I haven't had time to read the notability guidelines yet. But I may get round to it soon. If the article just needs more references and a bit more info I can do that. If it is purely notability which is the problem, these small UK punk rock bands do not often have a full website with any information, often relying on myspace. I feel that for these bands wikipedia often allows a concise article to be written drawing from the various interviews and other information on the internet. So, wikipedia article often shows highly in search rankings for these bands, giving a nice base for information on these bands.

I doubt anyone else will edit this article, so if any changes are needed or new information added I'll have to do it at some point. So lastly is their any information not included that would allows this article to remain or is it purely since the band are so small? Lastsal (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:MUSIC. Comment on: "wikipedia often allows a concise article to be written drawing from the various interviews and other information on the internet. So, wikipedia article often shows highly in search rankings for these bands, giving a nice base for information on these bands." Please read WP:NOT. Rigby27 Talk 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Dgf32 (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per located references. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre

Delete No WP:RS, fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient news coverage in English [14] and Chinese [15]. cab (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the main complaint can be answered by tagging it "unreferenced". cab has already dealt with notability. It is rather too like advertising blurb, but that too can be corrected. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AccountAbility (Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility)

Delete fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in, for example, Fortune magazine -- I can't navigate the Fortune site to find the article but here's an article commenting on the Fortune article and quoting the head of the Institute. JamesMLane t c 12:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be notable as agroup, but the article needs clean up. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maui Academy of Performing Arts

Delete Has little third party source, most of the references are from the organization's website itself. Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im in the middle of adding third party sources. The reference information that is from the organization's website is descriptive and aggregate information that frankly would not be likely posted anywhere else. The media would likely get their information from the organization. Doing a simple google search shows a number of electronic third party references. The organization has been around for 30 years and has can continuous local media coverage in that time. Also, MAPA falls under WP:ORG. Btakita (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like another party to weigh in on this, preferably somebody familiar with Maui art and/or local (count & state) theater culture. I have been providing more and more references and external links, but I think they take away from the article. I can literally flood the page with hundreds of external, verifiable, and reliable references, but I think that will distract from the essential information in the article. I would also rather not have to go through the effort of obtaining all of the print references. How many and what sort of articles are needed to not get this article deleted? Btakita (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The typical minimum to meet the notability standard is two instances of non-trivial coverage in outside sources. E.g. two newspaper articles about the center. I see a bunch more than two on Google News [16], so you should be okay on that count. Beyond that, though, articles should be written by primarily by summarising what independent sources have already said about the subject, rather than by writing one's own personal knowledge of the subject or repeating what the subject of the article says about itself, so in that sense, the more references added to an article, the better. I'll add this one to the Hawaii deletion sorting list to maybe get a local's attention, but from my perspective, this is a topic for which Wikipedia should have an article, and we can all work together to improve it. cab (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what I just said. cab (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it now has multiple non-trivial references from three separate reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article meets the notability requirements and satisfies the original complaint. Btakita (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ki-ken-tai-ichi

Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Japanese, should be "気剣體一致" (kikentai icchi). In a google search [17], term appears in the title of books, for example, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to go about writing an article for it. cab (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say this almost fall under speedy G1; no context --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has context: "in Budo/Martial". It would help if the following word "Arts" hadn't been omitted though. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Japanese Wikipedia has two hits for "気剣体一致" (kikentai itchi): Tetsuzan Kuroda 黒田鉄山 (a martial artist) and Yutaka Kase 加瀬豊 (CEO of a company). Fg2 (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy); there's just nothing there, including no assertion of notability. JJL (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shame because it could be interesting if developed, but there isn't much to work with. No sign of notability and no references. J Readings (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the good reasons above; nn, little content, unreferenced. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slogan has little recognition. Article is so short that it can be created again if more information comes to light. Fg2 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Clearly NN. Black Kite 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder ripps

Delete- fails to meet any standards -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.95.112 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- same reason as above. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree that bio does not meet wiki standards Noxia (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knetwit

Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's almost WP:SPAM, but not close enough to speedy - not that I would argue against a speedy in this case. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I could relist this but it's a pretty obvious result. Wizardman 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zagrob

Non-notable "music group (??)" which doesn't even have an album. Nekohakase (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed nom (I presume you're trying to nominate Zagrob?) cab (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pussyman

Was proded for "unreferenced, no references to be found online." User:Discharging P removed it because (see Talk:Pussyman) "I saw this prod on here, and after reading about how it works, I decided to remove it. I personally know of Pussyman and he is notable, IMO." Still unreferenced and I can't find references online. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability that is sourced. JuJube (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to David Christopher. A quick search (seriously, the things I do for Wikipedia) took me to his home page (NSFW, of course), where I learned his real name. Following up with a more detailed search revealed some 82,000+ hits. While I am well aware of the shortcomings found in search engine tests, that tells me that it shouldn't be too hard to dig up something more substantial, and so I'm inclined to give the article a chance under the proper name and see what comes up. --jonny-m t 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N BalazsH (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oh, bother. RFerreira (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP but would not oppose move to David Christopher. This guy is certainly notable.Discharging P (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article stands, it fails WP:N and it is borderline nonsense. Alexf⁴² 03:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wisne

Autobiography of non-notable actor. Tons of references, but no evidence of notability. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 07:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on

ATTENTION

This is not an article about being an actor. Andy is a recognizable name for many reasons as the article well documents.

hold on Being a starter for the University of Notre Dame is considered a major accompishment. Andy is a public figure and recognizable name as both an actor and former accomplished athlete at a historic University. Andy has been on NBC,ABC,CBS,FOX,ESPN,LA Times,Chicago Sun Times, Many other Ap sources, editorials. Andy was also invited to speak at Notre Dame.

hold on

ATTENTION

This is not an article about being an actor. Andy is a recognizable name for many reasons as the article well documents.

The article has recently as of Febuary 24, 2008 been cleaned up and tightened. New references have been added and many old ones removed. Spelling corrections were made.

Irish starter at nose guard in 2001,Irish regular at defensive tackle to begin 2000,first-team all-state in '96, brother Jerry USA Today First Team All American on Defense at Jenks, played at Notre dame and with the Chicago Bears and Green bay Packers, Father Gerald 1966 National Championship team, Andy Wisne Performed Stand Up comedy with Lou Ferrigno and Natasha Leggero, Featured in a huge front page Los Angeles Times Cover story in November 27, 2002 about transitioning from football to becoming an actor. Aunt Pam is a four time emmy award winner,Sister-in-law Shannon was an All-American Swimmer at Notre Dame,Performed at the World Famous Hollywood Improv playing Mac Daddy (in Elvis costume) in multiple productions of Ryan Litzinger's "Shakespeare's Punk Rock". Article in South Bend Tribune 2 Day Story,Treated for Bipolar disorder. Andy is now properly medicated and treated,Awarded scholarships to play football from: The University of Notre Dame, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, University of Arkansas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Kansas State, Rice, University of Missouri,The Air Force Academy, Baylor, Rice. Also recruited by Harvard, Yale, and Penn, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk)

Please pay close attention to the following listed in Wikipedia-

"check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AFD. before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the following were breached- Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons. In the normal operations of Wikipedia, approximately five thousand pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish starter at nose guard in 2001,Irish regular at defensive tackle to begin 2000,first-team all-state in '96, brother Jerry USA Today First Team All American on Defense at Jenks, played at Notre dame and with the Chicago Bears and Green bay Packers, Father Gerald 1966 National Championship team, Andy Wisne Performed Stand Up comedy with Lou Ferrigno and Natasha Leggero, Featured in a huge front page Los Angeles Times Cover story in November 27, 2002 about transitioning from football to becoming an actor. Aunt Pam is a four time emmy award winner,Sister-in-law Shannon was an All-American Swimmer at Notre Dame,Performed at the World Famous Hollywood Improv playing Mac Daddy (in Elvis costume) in multiple productions of Ryan Litzinger's "Shakespeare's Punk Rock". Article in South Bend Tribune 2 Day Story,Treated for Bipolar disorder. Andy is now properly medicated and treated,Awarded scholarships to play football from: The University of Notre Dame, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, University of Arkansas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Kansas State, Rice, University of Missouri,The Air Force Academy, Baylor, Rice. Also recruited by Harvard, Yale, and Penn, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's nice and all, but you can't write an article about yourself. It's literally one of the first rules here. HalfShadow (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia hold on

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason'- Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wisne is a recognizable name and notable for many reasons as referenced in article. Starter for the University of Notre Dame football team, family football legacy (Notre Dame/NFL legacy, and an up an comming actor featured in the Los Angeles times, featured on NBC halftime special, Chicago times, and many other sources. How is that not notable??? hold on

Jimmy Clausen has a page and he is only a freshman at ND?

See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia original research# Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason- Wikipedia

Obviously persuasion to delete this article comes from personal uninterest in the subjsect matter at hand. After examining some of the Wikipedia's articles there should be no reason for discussion as listed above- ////Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article-Wikipedia

On the contrary. Andy wisne has became a name synonymous for perseverance. At a time in history where people need to stand up and lead for human values and strength it is vastly important that the work of such role models not to be underminded, undervalued, or kept hidden solely from a public opinion of like and dislike. Performing at the Improv with Lou Ferrigno and undermining it by saying it is "just" straight to video is poposterous. Andy is someone who has paid dues beyond belief as documented in many stories. His status as a non notable actor is beside the point. Andy is known as an over achieving athlete that broke into another business. This is more than being about an actor. It is about a family legacy, a human being with morality and ethics, and with this he is a RECOGNIZABLE NAME. Thank you for your time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andywisne (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 February 2008

Reply to below imdb is an official recourse of refrence for professionalism for actors, director, writers, producers- so on. His improv work can be tracked to the LA Connection comedy theatre. I'm sure they have a number on 411. His director of the improv is listed on the imdb biographyof andy wisne at the top. I'm sure the director Dan Weisman will clarify it for you. The names of actors, directors and crew for sitcom 37b and their salary and wages can be tracked to the director Christopher Demanci. His name is listed on imdb. Not only that but there are contracts on hand in which actor and crew signed that he can supply copies of it. I'm sure someone closely connected with each project would have made a phone call by now if the accusations were false. The article will get cleaned up but there is absolutely no reason that an article on Andy Wisne should exist.

Delete Largely sourced to the IMDB entry, which can't be considered wholly reliable for biographical details, and which lists his few credits as either straight-to-video or minor television roles (eg. "Bar Patron" in an episode of Ally McBeal). Beyond this, there doesn't appear to be significant, independent coverage of his improv work, and the pilot Sitcom 37B in which he's cast is sourced to a post on Craigslist.[18] Throwing COI concerns into the mix, this appears to be an exercise in self-promotion. --Sturm 15:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason- Wikipedia hold on Reply to above imdb is an official recourse of refrence for professionalism for actors, director, writers, producers- so on. His improv work can be tracked to the LA Connection comedy theatre. I'm sure they have a number on 411. His director of the improv is listed on the imdb biographyof andy wisne at the top. I'm sure the director Dan Weisman will clarify it for you. The names of actors, directors and crew for sitcom 37b and their salary and wages can be tracked to the director Christopher Demanci. His name is listed on imdb. Not only that but there are contracts on hand in which actor and crew signed that he can supply copies of it. I'm sure someone closely connected with each project would have made a phone call by now if the accusations were false. The article will get cleaned up but there is absolutely no reason that an article on Andy Wisne should not exist.

Also Andy Wisne recieved a co-star billing in the Pilot "Sweet Potato Queens" in which he delivered lines to actress Delta Burke. 300 pound Notre Dame football player becomes a 200 lb sitcom actor and has the Los Angeles Times write an article and that is non notable? Gimme a break. Andy chose to put uncredited on the role because he felt he could do better. This could be confirmed with Eddie Winkler (now at ACME Talent and Literary) when and was with him at Buchwald Talent Group. I'm sure they have a pay stub on file

Irish starter at nose guard in 2001,Irish regular at defensive tackle to begin 2000,first-team all-state in '96, brother Jerry USA Today First Team All American on Defense at Jenks, played at Notre dame and with the Chicago Bears and Green bay Packers, Father Gerald 1966 National Championship team, Andy Wisne Performed Stand Up comedy with Lou Ferrigno and Natasha Leggero, Featured in a huge front page Los Angeles Times Cover story in November 27, 2002 about transitioning from football to becoming an actor. Aunt Pam is a four time emmy award winner,Sister-in-law Shannon was an All-American Swimmer at Notre Dame,Performed at the World Famous Hollywood Improv playing Mac Daddy (in Elvis costume) in multiple productions of Ryan Litzinger's "Shakespeare's Punk Rock". Article in South Bend Tribune 2 Day Story,Treated for Bipolar disorder. Andy is now properly medicated and treated,Awarded scholarships to play football from: The University of Notre Dame, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, University of Arkansas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Kansas State, Rice, University of Missouri,The Air Force Academy, Baylor, Rice. Also recruited by Harvard, Yale, and Penn,

Jimmy Clausen has a page and he is only a freshman at ND?

Delete attempt at self-promotion by non-notable actor. Edward321 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason- Wikipedia

hold on

This information should be included as it will help many people to never give up on their dreams and to keep going. Including the article is more about the journey of an artist and him wanting to share his trials and tribulations and overcomming them. The story is unique in itself, interesting to the masses, historical fact. Being a Notre Dame legacy is reason enough. The story from the Los Angeles Times introducing Andy as a more prevelent public figure is double the reason. Andy loves what he does and I think any agent, manager, or publisist would make sure the biography of Andy Wisne be included in the Wikepedia. Andy is without representation at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete WP:AGF aside, Mr. Wisne clearly doesn't understand what we're trying to accomplish and was looking for self-promotion, as stated. SingCal 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on hold on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest- Wikipedia hold on[reply]

Andy Wisne is a credited writer and actor. confirmation professional and academic expertise

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason- Wikipedia

hold on This information should be included as it will help many people to never give up on their dreams and to keep going. Including the article is more about the journey of an artist and him wanting to share his trials and tribulations and overcomming them. The story is unique in itself, interesting to the masses, historical fact. Being a Notre Dame legacy is reason enough. The story from the Los Angeles Times introducing Andy as a more prevelent public figure is double the reason. Andy loves what he does and I think any agent, manager, or publisist would make sure the biography of Andy Wisne be included in the Wikepedia. Andy is without representation at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing an article about yourself is against NPOV and frankly the article itself is a mess. HalfShadow (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on

Nuetral point of view was not breached.  All information is well documented and referenced

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason'- Wikipedia

hold on This should have been entered in Wikipedia a long time ago. The author does not matter as long as the facts are truth and that was not breached. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.- Wikipedia. With this said the featured stories are far more flattering than what the author has wrote. It is a combination of getting respect with much humility. The article could have been much longer than entered. Notable and recognizable name can not be denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.231.133 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on

I'm sure the millions who follow Notre Dame football find it comprehensible. Many of those same fans a have watched and are watching Andy Wisne's progress. Just because you can't comprehend it does not mean others do not

Delete. Self-promotion. Cluttering this AfD with ramblings does not help the guy's case. "Irish starter at nose guard" is totally incomprehensible - it does not become any more comprehensible by being stated three times! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on Being a starter for the University of Notre Dame is considered a major accompishment. Andy is a public figure and recognizable name as both an actor and former accomplished athlete at a historic University. Andy has been on NBC,ABC,CBS,FOX,ESPN,LA Times,Chicago Sun Times, Many other Ap sources, editorials. Andy was also invited to speak at Notre Dame.

hold on

I'm sure the millions who follow Notre Dame football find it comprehensible. Many of those same fans a have watched and are watching Andy Wisne's progress. Just because you can't comprehend it does not mean others do not

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

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

The result was delete as the film does fail WP:NFF —αlεx•mullεr 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvam

Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep adequately sourced by WP:RS. JJL (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why was it put up for deletion? Universal Hero (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has not entered production yet. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep the main article and merge the others to it (non-admin close). JJL (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laird of Burnbrae

Series of articles by the same user which are essentially genealogical entries without any indication of notability. No sources are available online other than this user's personal website. She promised to return to add references, but, alas, never did. Jfire (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find a few mentions of a Laird of Burnbrae who is named Archibald Primrose, a name held by several of the Earl of Roseberys, and a mention that the Earldom is a cadet branch of the family. But none of these particular Lairds seem to have obvious notability themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main article as a noble title; merge and redirect all others to it. JJL (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parent & Merge/redir others - Royalty is notable, so Parent Article should remain. Unless each person is independently notable, is notable for something other than the title, redirect them to the Parent Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this outcome as well. Jfire (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jfire - This was a gentry family. The suggestion that it was connected with more than a small area is far fetched. The source cited for this merely indicates that Burnbrae was a common Scottish place name. My guess is thatthe last laird sold his estate at Tulliallan to Lord Keith, who rebuilt the castle there. The article on the castle contains no information on its previous history, but a link could be added. The articles are not helped by having links that are currently redirects to irrelevant pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep main article and redirect others..notable as a titled group at minimum. --Stormbay (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge as suggested. i think everyone agrees how to deal with this group. SNOW close? DGG (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnect

Delete fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. also states "....launched in October 2008"^[19], WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.--Hu12 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't think this is covered by WP:CRYSTAL (judging by the infobox, "October 2008" should read "October 2007"), the paucity of independent coverage suggests a lack of notability. --Sturm 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to indicate notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted at 08:06 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wash day

Delete no WP:RS. Unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another embarrassing example of WP:NFT, as well as WP:Nonsense to boot. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense, so tagged. JuJube (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lather, rinse, and delete. Not quite clear what this would be even if notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. henrik•talk 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RSM Chio Lim Stone Forest

Delete fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on GNews searches [20][21], I see a couple of articles from the International Accounting Bulletin which cover the firm [22][23]. For some reason I can't log into AccessMyLibrary.com from so I'll take a look later. cab (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaliforniaAliBaba's research. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources (there's one reference in the article, but it doesn't seem to support what it's supposed to, plus it's not independent of the subject). Matchups (talk) 12:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's true that the one reference is not independent, given that "Contact Us" at the bottom leads to the company itself, but the news search done by cab seems to confirm that the business is notable enough at least to be quoted in news articles, as here and here. (I'd incorporate those in the article if I could figure out how.) Not at all likely to be disinterested, IBM profiles them as a customer here. The company sponsors scholarships, I see. In the alternative to deletion, if the article is not kept, I believe it should either be merged or at least redirected to RSM International. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Look

Delete fails WP:BIO Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would say merge with Only (magazine), but the article has no information to merge.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely nothing here approaching WP:BIO. Probably should have been speedied. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of regional Burning Man events. Although no arguments have been advanced to keep this article as anything other than a merge, I have also considered arguments advanced in the linked AfD and the other nominations for deletion concerning Burning Man events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myschievia

Yes, officer, it's another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. Extra points, though, for burning down a model of the Roman Colosseum. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.. Clearly not made up, but not notable either. Black Kite 23:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess SP1900

No assertion of Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Wongm (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC) cat=F[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recycled Rainbow

Hey boys and girls, it's another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. This particular event had total attendance of 60. There's more guys hanging out on the corner down by the 7-11 right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It boggles the mind how an attendance of 60 people can be considered notable by any stretch of the imagination. Fails WP:N spectacularly. Doc Strange (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete cruft, non-notable, and not of any interest to anyone not involved. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of regional Burning Man events. Action to be taken by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterFuse

Another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable on its own, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article. (Sound familiar?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The larger events are notable. This one claims 700 participants, which means there's much more interest in this topic than many of the things on WP. This article should stay so that editors can fix the concerns about sources. Bry9000 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be somewhat of a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn), sn article similar to this one which also nominated for AfD, to merge these articles into one larger article with sections devoted to each event, then redirect this and the other articles to the appropriate section. How does that sound? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Realkyhick made the most profound argument for continuation of the Interfuse entry in Wikipedia. Realkyhick noted that Interfuse is a Regional event of the Burning Man Project. I am of course assuming that Realkyhick is not a Burning Man Participant, thus Realkyhick's knowledge of the event and it's status as an approved Regional event, especially as such an authority on notablity, has demonstrated that the event entry is worthy of notice.

Interfuse is by definition most notable in the Midwest because of its ability to unite the scattered Midwestern Burners to their culture throughout the region.

But don't take my word for it, feel free to contact Zay, the Regional representative for the event. He can be contacted via the email address information found on the Burning Man Project web site. I've not included the link because I'm sure that you can find it.

The Interfuse event entry is for the yearly "event", much like a lunar eclipse which does happen and is considered notable, but the entry is not an advertisment for the organization that sponsors the event, nor is it an advertisment for the Burning Man Community at large.

Interfuse distinguishes itself from other Regional events because of it's namesake, but to post the information below would actually be in violation of "Wiki is no dictionary" guideline. (definition found at www.thefreedictionary.com):

In`ter`fuse´ v. t. 1.

1. To pour or spread between or among; to diffuse; to scatter.

The ambient air, wide interfused, Embracing round this florid earth. - Milton.

2. To spread through; to permeate; to pervade.

Keats, in whom the moral seems to have so perfectly interfused the physical man, that you might almost say he could feel sorrow with his hands. - Lowell.

3. To mix up together; to associate

Interfuse also holds certain truth's to be self evident at each event. Those truths are posted in the entry. At the Interfuse event they build a temporary city-community of tents, domes, light, dance, fire and music in the wilderness. They celebrate diversity continuously through out the event. Then they dismantle the city and Leave No Trace. Not only are all state and federal laws applicable and followed, but the event is re-themed to motivate progressive community interaction.

Specific details about the current stages of the event can be found on the event's website, which was provided as a link.

The effort and community participation necessary to hold the event year after year is a phenomenon in itself, but that is only an opinion. I'm sure that most participants and organizers feel the same way. But you won't find that statment on the page.

I would suggest that Realkyhick re-read the Wiki five pillars that define the character of the project. In an effort to not insert personal opinions, arguments or experiences the article was written as an informative entry about the topic Interfuse, was concise, and with a neutral point of view.

By no means perfect, it was a true representative entry about the event, simply because it was simple and included no upcoming and thus unconfirmable information.

Each Regional event is a separate event. Each letter of the alphabet has a seperate entry, simply because phonetically it is different from every other letter. Each event that is a classified as a regional event, wether they be Burning Man affiliated or no, should have their own entry, simply because they are quite simply geographically different.

I use Wiki on a regular basis, sometimes as a starting point for research, sometimes as a tool for clarification. Many who might use Wiki in the same way would lose valuable information in reference to the Interfuse entry if it were deleted. I personally would have liked to have seen previous art shown at the event on the Wiki entry. I followed the provided links and saw great examples of similarly expressive work, much like I what I experienced when I attended a regional out east, which happens to NOT be marked for deletion. Of course if works of art were included in the entry, there would need to be cross referencing, artist permission, and seperate pages created. Works of art should of course be listed on an artist entry page, much like each state lists "notable" residents.

I know the last time I tried to devote time and energy to an artist page that had profound effect, was worth notice, not only by myself but to an entire neighborhood in New York City, it was of course scheduled for deletion by an editor much like your self: someone who wanted something besides actual "information". I might have been mistaken when I thought that "information" IS the most notable part of Wikipedia.

If you would like to read published text about the Burning Man Community and find the actual atributes of a regional please see the listings on the Burning Man Project site. Feel free to contact anyone, listed, speak to them in person if you need to verify the existience of any Regional event, it's notablness, it's independence in and of itself. It is my hope that then those that would delete this entry would at least understand that somethings in reality, their distinction and discription, depend not on words, or on an opinion of them; they simply exist. A mere mention of them is sometimes enough for those looking for an entry about them. Contemplate deletion, but be first willing to part with something before any experimentation with the impermanent aspect of anything. Otherwise some might start to call ya a

Burner(Burning Man).

lyriclees

Comment: That has to be the most long-winded AfD argument I have ever seen in nearly three years of editing. It's so long-winded, in fact, that it is terribly ineffective. But moreover, lyriclees is twisting my words to the point that he is engaging in outright falsehood. To say that my recognition that my recognition that Interfuse is "the most profound argument for continuation of the Interfuse entry" is patently absurd, and blatantly wrong. I recognize the status as a regional Burning Man event because the article says it is, and for no other reason at all. But that doesn't make it notable! More to the point, there are no reliable, INDEPENDENT sources that indicate whether or not the event meets notability standards. The official web site does not count, because its content is controlled by the event organizers, who may or may not provide accurate information about the event. Some guy named "Zay" is not a reliable source, more multiple reasons. The Burning Man project site is not an independent, reliable source, because it is affiliated with this event. To say that each regional Burn event should have its own entry because each letter of the alphabet is different and, ergo, each regional Burn is different — well, I'm trying to be polite here, but that make absolutely, positively no sense whatsoever. I take considerable umbrage as this editor's suggestion that I re-read "Five Pillars." As someone who has spent way too much time over the past 2½ years-plus writing, editing and policing Wikipedia, I'm bloody sure I have a very good idea of what Wikipedia is and isn't. It isn't a listing of non-notable subjects. Interfuse simply does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, no matter what "Zay" says. If a newspaper or magazine that has no connection with Burning Man recognized this event with some sort of coverage (more than a trivial "coming events" announcement that any event can get), I woule be inclined to change my opinion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice to the newcomers. So he wrote a lot and used one ineffective argument among all his other points; big deal.
You write that the page doesn't have verifiable sources, but then you spend half your post above trying to disqualify certain sources. By those standards, a great deal of material on WP would be disqualified. A better conclusion is to let the largest regional Burning Man events have their own pages, merge the smaller ones, and give editors and fans a chance to find more independent sources.
Several editors have argued emphatically that certain regional Burning Man events that claim a *small* attendance should be considered non-notable on the basis of attendance numbers alone. This is apparently not such an event; it claims 700 participants and is thus not "non-notable" by those same standards. Merge the smallest ones; keep this and other large ones. Bry9000 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that Realkyhick fancied themself slighted or insulted because I, a reader/user posted my "talk" that questioned their long standing (2.5 years) experience, much like the question posed about the legitimacy of fledgling Regionals. I requested that the pillars be re-read because Realkyhick assumes as stated above, the right to "police" Wikipedia entries. Call me old fashioned, but I think that information should always remain free from personal bias and from biased enforcers. In the pillars it calls for neutrality in editing. That is why I often referr to the information in Wikipedia.

The discussion has gone from what is notable based on content of information, to notable based on attendance records, and thus classification of actual independent events as entries, to classification as popular and unpopular events. The events are actually for the participants, just as the information in this forum is for the reader/user.

And once again a point that I tried to make, has been proven by Realkyhick's own response. What one might call indepth and expressive, might seem "long winded" to another. If it be deemed too long to read, it can of course be seen by the unfamiliar as ineffective.The entries should be left as they are, separate and simple, and as a user I'd ask that the editor that brought the entries into question should be sanctioned in what ever way that this site handles the issue.

To give a few "chosen" regionals their own pages "especially" for demonstrating record attendance based on last years numbers again goes against the principals that the events are based on, and would only be decided as an appropriate thing to do by people who don't really know what they are talking about. The regional events are held based partially on geograhpy, hence the "Regional" title, not a need to gain local recognition or publication, something that's begining to look like a foreign concept here.

A collation of regional events posted on the Burning Man Project entry page, each leading to their own page would show more neutrailty than a few chosen regionals garnering their own pages, (ie Finches and Darwin's Finches) but then that would go against the nature of the event which is to have the main event and the regionals stand alone on their own. Burners tend to call that self reliance.

It is also pertinent at this point to direct any reader back to the Burning Man Project contacts for clarification about media involvment at any event and the need for participants to feel free, and to express themselves as such. It also allows each participant to not have to defend their view of the experience when bombarded with the perceptionally biased views published in a locally syndicated journal that prints most often what's fit to increase circulation. Unless a event has been experienced I don't expect any reader to "understand". That is why the events are posted as they are: so that if the entry sounds so interesting that personal research is deemed necessary, then specific event attendance information, called an "invitation", can be found using the links provided.

Information not only about the rigorous process to be come a regional, but the ideals behind the regional events is posted on the Burning Man Project website. I directed readers there for information clarification. If the assumption stands that all information on the internet is an "unreliable" source, and that of course only "mass produced publications" are legitimate, fine, but then then some reasearch into propoganda might also come in handy.

So unless this forum is advocating that every participant or "fan" become "deviants" of the event process simply to satisfy a purposeful lack of local independent sources that report on the events, I suggest that no one hold their breath for a "chance to find" more "independent" sources. If the media attends as participants, not as "writers with an agenda" then they might just create a piece that clarifies how notable the regional events actually are.

And FYI, he's a she, but you'll have to take my word for it.

lyriclees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.10.152 (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about the gender assumption in my use of "he." Bry9000 (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. It's an encyclopedia. Representatives of the mass media are perfectly capable of attending an event without becoming participants, and they need not abandon their principles of professional journalism to recognize the notability (or lack thereof) of an event. I should know — I'm a member of the mass media. We're here to document, not promote an event or an agenda, even though I'll be the first to admit that the media sometimes overstep those bounds of professionalism — John McCain vs. New York Times, for instance. Still, Wikipedia requires reliable, independent sources to prove the notability of a subject. That's not my rule, but Wikipedia's. Information on the Internet is often reliable, particularly that published by recognized media organizations, academic or professional journals, and the like. Information sources controlled by the subject — primary sources — are frequently used here, but they should not be the sole source, because they may not be the most objective source of informaiton about a subject, its notability and its veracity. That's why these Wikipedia policies are in place, as well as policies against promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This right here, where these comments are posted, this is actually a forum. Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. In the project there are articles. Even the guidelines for Wiki tell you that the concesus process is because EVERY writer or author will present a biased opinion, that includes the editors here, and the Mass Media out there.

It is the process of concensus, and not just one editor, that makes the final entry of neutral view. This project is to ensure that the information posted is the most "real time" information about lots of things, including events.

Promotion includes an invitation. The entry for Interfuse was lacking not only grandstanding about the event, but also a flat out invitation, so it was not a promotional item, if that's what is being insinuated.

In re:"Representatives of the mass media are perfectly capable of attending an event without becoming participants, and they need not abandon their principles of professional journalism to recognize the notability (or lack thereof) of an event." This statement completely demonstrates Realkyhick's lack of knowledge about the ablity to remain PROFESSIONALLY unbiased as a reporter on any event. Reporters should use the gift of writing to record the event as they EXPERIENCE it, not as they personally PERCEIVE it. Perception condones a preconceived notion, where as submersion into participation without agendas to be looked out for leads to real expression, and that's what resonates with readers. Mass Media Members like Realkyhick are no better suited to the Regional actual events described in the entries, any more than serenity is compatable with veracity, hence the lack there of for independent sources that can attest to the "truthiness" of the events.

And I quote: "Wikipedia has advantages over traditional paper encyclopedias. Wikipedia has a very low "publishing" cost for adding or expanding entries and a low environmental impact, since it need never be printed. Also, Wikipedia has wikilinks instead of in-line explanations and it incorporates overview summaries (article introductions) with the extensive detail of a full article. Additionally, the editorial cycle is short. A paper encyclopedia stays the same until the next edition, whereas writers update Wikipedia at every instant, around the clock, ensuring that it stays abreast of the most recent events and scholarship."

I still say leave the Interfuse entry as is until July of 2008, with a wikilink on the non-neo-notable and "independently verifiable" source of the Burning Man (Project) entry if the "OC of the pedia" police make it a must. If there are no "non-website" sources that meet the Wiki standards after that, by all means merge it into a long list of Regionals with the break away "already published" events getting their own page.

lyriclees

ps thanks bry

Comment: Lyriclees' comments above again demonstrate his complete lack of understanding about the concept of notability in regards to Wikipedia, as well the role and professional principles of journalists. I know more about reportig and writing than Lyriclees ever will, and I take strong exception to his assertion to the contrary. Apparently his concept of a real journalist is one who agrees with his view. Apparently he believes that, since any Burn event is on a totally different metaphysical plane, there's no way any mere reporter can be expected to understand it. That's pure bollocks. These events must meet the same notability criteria as any other event. Period. Merge this into the "list of" article with all the others. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

And Realkyhick's comment again proves the point that most "real" journalists are more concerned about what they think they see and don't report the real facts. I also think that real writers are first good readers. Realkyhick obviously wants to disregard actual information like the fact included previously that this he is actually a she. I understand the "concept" of notability, it's been made quite crystal clear. I still think that in this specific case merging to a "list of" not only does amounts to a load of shite, because the application of the "concept" in this case would be detrimental to readers/users. I asked for an extension of merge, and would still like to see that happen.

By the bye, a real jornalist in my view would not cloud an issue with personal perception. Journalist's like that are not often found. I never claimed to be a reporter or a writer, or assert my expertise. I never questioned Realkyhick's expertise as a writer, only as an editor.

I just figured, as a reader, that any one who only uses perjoratives as their persuasion can't be a very perceptive person, and of course lumped Realkyhick in with those who can't actually use words properly. Those are the kinds of journalists who fail to be able to find them (words) at events like those that are supposed to be lumped together.

Those are the kinds of journalists who would be better off as participants with no agenda, rather than as floundering professionals who try to recap reality in the dash for the deadline.

lyriclees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.10.152 (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has become quite obvious that your notion of "real facts" in relation to this subject is greatly clouded by your obvious devotion to the subject and the Burn movement, and no amount of rational discussion could sway you. I am reminded by a fellow reporter (who got quite a kick out of this whole discussion) that trying to debate such issues with such people is like mud wrestling with a pig — you just get dirty, and the pig likes it (whether it's a he or a she). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The "real fact" is that I am going through the proper channels to try to make a significant contribution and try and effect a much needed change to a common misconception. That doesn't mean that things will actually change, nor does that mean that everyone will approve of my attempts.

Even before tools such as encyclopedias existed, humans have been trying to perfect the system of classification. The real truth is that sometimes things defy even classifcation, especially when they are in the first stages of their evolution. The events set to be lumped together are a perfect example. This venue, the wikipedia articles, seemed to be the place for an entry such as the informative article on Interfuse. I guesse I figure if I'm lucky at all, then someone might not mind another figure, and the Interfuse entry won't fall "by the way" side before it is "professionally and independently" backed.

I am of course glad that your friend got a kick out of the discussion. And while I can appreciate your friends view about how the stodgy might not relish the idea of getting down and dirty, where I come from it's something that has to be done.

This discussion reminds me of one that I had with my grandfather about raising sheep when I was very young. The first time that I was able to participate in the birth of a new herd of I was delighted. Within a few days, the lambs had their tails cut off. I was of course horrified. When I asked why that had to be done I was told that it was to stop the lambs from getting sick until they learned how to take care of themselves.

I've grown up alot since then, but I have never stopped asking why. My grandfather was a good man, but he was really just a laundromat owner who was forced out of business by the "expenses" of a war. I've since learned that real care, and not just of the lambs, but the surroundings-the workers, the land, the feed, the water, the pens-will enable the lamb to still be well while it learns to take care of itself. It takes alot of consideration and "dirty work", but the tails do not have to be cut off.

Pigs are of course fun to wrestle, one at a time, and when slaughtered correctly, they make really good bacon.

lyriclees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.10.152 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It's not notable, and contains no more info than what is contained on the website. It's really just an advert. Bardcom (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of regional Burning Man events faithless (^speak) 06:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfterBurn

One more regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, and I'm guessing that the attendance figure given (800,008) is a wee bit suspect. Seeks to promote, not inform. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwiburn

Another regional offshoot event of Burning Man, this one Kiwi style. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article. The most notable thing about this one is apparently that the burn almost blowed up real good. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; with added references now meets relevant notability guidelines. JEREMY 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think so. Two refs are only announcements of the event to come, and do nothing at all to establish notability. Another talks more about the original Burning Man, and only mentions the NZ event in passing. I don't think these refs do the job, and the Youtube clip is not a reliable source. The radio interview is the only think that comes close. I maintain my position on this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The announcements simply reference the event names; stuff.co.nz (a valid secondary source) verifies the event (as does the radio interview on 95bfm) and specifically references the theme camp's title.  JEREMY 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:N are two different things. The sources seem to pass WP:V, but not WP:N. TJ Spyke` —Preceding comment was added at 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a vote one way or another, TJ? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources satisfy reliability IMHO (stuff.co.nz is a fairfax portal, and the radio station etc) Fosnez (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Fosnez, the sources are established NZ media. (The stuff article was carried in the Dominion Post and Waikato Times printed editions. bFM is the largest alternative radio station in NZ with 100,000 listeners). Kiwiburn is the 2nd largest overseas BM-inspired event. 200 people in an NZ context is equivalent to 15,000 in the US (75x the population) so to delete would be US-centric. richdrich —Preceding comment was added at 02:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's one of the more bizarre arguments I've ever heard for keeping an article. There's no meaningful rationale whatsoever for comparing population sizes to prove notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY? JEREMY 06:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is...??? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... any chance of getting back on-topic, folks? Keep. The sources are legit ones, and as pointed out Stuff and bFM are both big enough sources to be regarded as passing the required levels. When you add to that that Stuff was relaying a story from the Dominion-Post, one of the country's three biggest newspapers, and I think you have the notability you need for an article. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of regional Burning Man events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignition (event)

Once again, another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article. This event apparently isn't/wasn't even held after 2006. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the project page of WikiProject Neopaganism in Deletions and merges section. —— Becksguy (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple of references, but have not expanded the article from them, but that should be easier enough for someone to do that is more familar with the subject. Fosnez (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Better, but I'm still not convinced that it is notable enough. Both refs are about this event as an upcoming event. There's no indication from them that the event actually happened, and if it did, whether it was notable. Anyone can get an announcement of a planned event in sites/publications like these, but it still doesn't indicate whether something notable actually happened. Give us something reliable and after-the-fact. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 11:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of regional Burning Man events. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge/redirect to List of regional Burning Man events. I would like to keep this, but the refs are just too borderline. They seem to be more event listings than articles, so I reluctantly agree with nom. Even one good RS would tip me over into the keep kamp, although I couldn't find any. All the content will be in the merge article, and this article can be restored if it becomes more notable. — Becksguy (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_regional_Burning_Man_events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NüTopia

Yes, ladies and germs, it's another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article. In fact, there's very little to this article at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Having actually looked for sources, I can't find any for this one (apart from primary sources that verify it's existance [24][25]) I suggest merge back into List_of_regional_Burning_Man_events Fosnez (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of regional Burning Man events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EmoTAZ

Stil another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per User:Scientizzle. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of regional Burning Man events. Action to be taken by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recompression

Another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The article subject lacks notability and is mostly a cut and paste from the festival website (copyright?). At best, it could be a reference in the main "Burning Man" article. The article is also out of date (lists last festival as 2006, no mention of 2007 festival). In my opinion, it's really an advert for a festival masquerading as an article. Bardcom (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of regional Burning Man events. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Massive

Another regional offshoot event of Burning Man. Not notable in its own right, no independent reliable sources to verify anything in the article, appears to promote the event more than inform in an encyclopedic manner. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frostburn (Regional Burn). — Scientizzle 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim/Merge/redirect per User:Scientizzle. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If no one can be bothered commenting, I'm taking the nominator's word for it, particular as the author was already deemed non-notable and their article deleted. Neıl ☎ 11:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's Messiah

I found no independent reviews of this book from sources that meet the requirements of WP:BK; the book appears to be non-notable. There are a few reviews on personal websites and forums such as [26] and [27] , and also some marketing posing as a review ([28]), but no reliable sources. Note that the author's article was deleted for lack of notability around the same time this article was created, and subsequently WP:salted. Jfire (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was being bold and redirecting. The television series that the character this article is about only started yesterday. It is unnecessary to have an article on the character at this point, because the character surely can't be notable on his own. Should the content of the redirection expand, then there is no reason why the section cannot be expanded into an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Dai Shi has recently been deleted because the content of the article was also a copyright violation and Grounded into a double play is a banned user's sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Shi

This article is about a villain of a new TV series. The speedy deletion of this article is contested. Grounded into a double play (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this character is already covered in at least 2 articles Villains_in_Power_Rangers:_Jungle_Fury, Power_Rangers:_Jungle_Fury, no reason for so much coverage of a non-notable character. Ridernyc (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Villains_in_Power_Rangers:_Jungle_Fury as plausible search term. -- saberwyn 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This falls under the current ArbCom injunction. --Willow Wait (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you follow the spirit of the current ARBCOM injunction it should have never been created. Ridernyc (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded Deck

An extremely long, unsourced (because there aren't any) on an entirely non-notable band and its series of mergers. Travellingcari (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, surprised it wasn't speedied, I guess there's just a hint of notability to avoid SD. But not enough to avoid AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —αlεx•mullεr 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggy McDaniel

Non-notable individual with the claim of notability coming from his modelling career, that I can not find substantial support for. The username of the creator implies that this is an autobiographical article and google results for the name come with only four apges, one being this article and one being a log of the creation of this article.

I previously speedied this article but it did have some claim of notability so rather than immediately send it off I have put it here for further discussion. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanispamcruft, not notable at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The paucity of ghits would seem to suggest vanity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only indication of potential notability is film roles in films that don't exist; one in pre-production, two in filming, meaning there is a chance none may actually be released. No prejudice against re-creation providing it passes WP:N if the films get made and if he's actually a prominent character in them (not 'second crowd member on the left/friend #4). WLU (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. I've left the history of the article so if there's any content which people feel should be in the Britney Spears article, please feel free to merge it across. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Ghalib

AfDs for this article:

The article does not assert Ghalib's notability. See Relationships do not confer notability Pinkadelica (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Redirect ~~Strong delete~~ Because this individual may or may not be dating Britney Spears is the only possible reason for this article to start. In checking notability criteria, it is apparent that this individual, by himself, is a non-notable person for inclusion in Wikipedia. In accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria, it states That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A. That is relevant to Adnan Ghalib specifically, as the example given in the guideline is actually the first husband of Britney Spears. Relationships do not confer notability. I believe this article should be deleted and anything regarding Ghalib at this juncture should be no more than a notation in the Britney Spears article and not be accorded a separate article. For the reasons below, and the ones I listed here, I am changing my opinion to redirect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant section of the Britney Spears article as a plausible search term. This should remain a redirect (locked if necessary) until such a time as multiple sources describe a notability or importance other than being in a relationship with a celebrity. ~~I am indifferent on if this should be deleted before redirecting.~~ -- saberwyn 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: This should not be interpreted as a Keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLP1E and all that. Just being a boyfriend of a notorious celeb does not confer notability, no matter how many times TMZ mentions your name. It is, of course, a plausible search term, so send people to the appropriate article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears. Not notable on his own. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adnan Ghalib is not even mentioned in the Britney Spears article and current consensus is not to mention him there. Therefore I feel we should consider how appropriate a redirect there would be. I have no strong feelings about this article, though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has had/is having extensive media coverage, people usually come to Wikipedia to learn about new things, and this might well be one of them. Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Thanks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps some of the "redirect" voters might rethink their opinion in light of the consensus on the Spears page not to include Ghalib at this time. Without being mentioned in her article, his is even more unnotable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I now think that it should just be redirected there, should be uncontroversial.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be fine with a redirect, I just don't think the guy warrants an article of his very own. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The info is inherently of interest. Whether it is kept here or merged to Britney Spears (ironically, her initials are BS...), I could care less. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Johnson (philosopher)

the article is about a blogger who seems to be non-notable. the main argument for keeping it is that he's occasionally cited by roderick long. Bob A (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequately published/cited/quoted to meet WP:PROF which seems the relevant standard. JJL (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by RJC) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls short of WP:BIO. Article has been edited by Radgeek (talk · contribs), who admits to a WP:COI. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: The "offending" edits by Radgeek (talk · contribs) amount to 3 factual corrections (birthdate, place of residence, url of blog). Hardly WP:COI stuff. Libertatia (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a scholar who has been cited and quoted by notable people in notable venues. Radgeek's edits are minor and he didn't create the article. There is no reason to suspect that his edits were the type that WP:COI seeks to avoid. This is not a vanity article, and it really isn't a controversial one either. As I pointed out on the article talk page, here, Long quotes Johnson at length in a lecture he delivered at a Mises Institute conference. Walter Block cites a Long & Johnson article here.DickClarkMises (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per DickClarkMises, I agree that this has the appearance of being notable but hope that this can be expanded. RFerreira (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The citations by other authors are relevant, but not enough to put Johnson above WP:PROF. His appointment at the think tank and the citations by Roderick Long are both related to his work at Auburn, and thus not really independent confirmation of his acceptance in the field. Some published, peer-reviewed works are necessary, or a major award, or a major academic appointment. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the "think tank" of which he's a member, the molinari institute, is extremely small and apparently consists of only five people. Bob A (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs expansion/citations. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a basis for this Keep !vote? I can think of some good reasons to think of keeping, but you haven't given any here. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment:He has an article publishedin Reason magazine, and an article included in a published book. Just thought I'd mention that, in case it counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.255.84 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both count, but they fall far short of the relevant notability standard, which is WP:PROF. Is he among the more important academic philosophers living today? Has he won a major independent award or independent verification of his status as an expert? Not that I have seen. Generally, most people who pass WP:PROF are tenured professors, often at major research centers. Being cited by a notable professor does not in itself confer notability, in the same way that being related to a star doesn't. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fall far short of WP:PROF, and we still don't have any third party sources that would attest to notability and allow a pass on WP:BIO instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Burning Man. (Specifically, on closer examination of the parent article, to the sub-article List of regional Burning Man events) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frostburn (Regional Burn)

Non-notable event, which claims to be a regional offshoot of Burning Man. No reliable sources, only the official web site and a Flickr photo collection. Only 100 participants at a one-time event. I'm checking into other articles about similar events, and I suspect many of them will come up for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To an outsider, Burning Man and its "regional offshoots" may appear to be mere events, but Burning Man's core values have evolved into a social movement, and regional events are evidence of this movement. All accurate, neutral articles on legitimate regional burn events are notable for this reason, and removal of said articles feels like an attempt to downplay or even suppress a growing subculture/counter-culture that already reaches every corner of modern civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4noise (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uh, yeah, we're all about suppression here. Seriously, Wikipedia is not a place to promote movements, causes, or anyhting else. Your comment above proves that the purpose of your article is to promote the Burning Man "movement." The event simply does not meet Wikipedia notability standards, period, full stop. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is no more the place to promote a movement than to supress it. However, it is the place to document one. Quoting WP:SOAP (first point): "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." This is exactly what most of the regional burn articles (including the one on Frostburn) accomplish. The tone of your comments comes across as dismissive and arrogant, and this is no place for attitude! Most of your arguments for deletion fall under the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" (WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL) or are open to rebuttal under Wikipedia:Notability "Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability" ("There is a lack of objective criteria", "Valid content is deleted", "Obscure content isn't harmful"). Visitors count on Wikipedia for neutral, reliable information, and these articles on regional burns (should) provide exactly that. Let's keep the articles, but keep them objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4noise (talk • contribs) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. The article promotes more than informs, and the event fails notability guidelines anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the official number of participants required at a one-time event to pass the notability test? Would 101 have made it a notable event? Is it based on the number of participants relative to the number of people reading Wikipedia that could have attended the event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allartburns (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a die-hard Burner and a participant in Frostburn, I nevertheless have to agree with Realkyhick. Should Burning Man have an entry? Definitely--it has impacted the culture as a whole and spawned a social movement, as Wiki4noise points out. Larger regionals such as Playa del Fuego, that are nearly a decade old and still growing? Perhaps, but I would like to see that they have had some influence other than that of Burning Man as a whole. Frostburn? I'm less convinced. What about the weekly Burning Man meet-and-greets that take place at Cambridge Brewing Company in Boston? Do they get an entry as well? I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere. I would say that the regional themselves do deserve an entry because they are evidence of a growing social movement, but I would have thought that a list of them should be sufficient, and devoting a whole page to each one seems like unnecessary overdetail.

Notability is defined as the following: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If Frostburn is notable, then whether 100 or 101 people attended is not the issue, rather the issue is whether the culture as a whole noticed it (i.e. news stories etc.) Burning Man clearly meets criteria. Frostburn I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.4 (talk)

I don't know if this qualifies as "significant coverage", but the January 30th issue of the Pittsburgh City Paper--the metro area's #1 weekly guide to culture and entertainment--featured a three-column article entitled "Main Event" on the "Short List" page (page 42) all about Frostburn. The online version isn't available any more (it seems they replace the prior week's content with the next weeks content on a single web page), but I have added a reference to the print version of the publication to the Wikipedia article. If anyone wants to see the actual story, I have a scanned GIF version I can forward to you. Wiki4noise (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not nominate Playa del Fuego specifically because it has been around a while, attracted attention from outside sources, and generally stood the test of time. Frostburn does not, at least for now. By the way, an article called "Regional Burning Man events," with a paragraph or two about each event, would probably qualify as notable if sourced properly. The regional-burn movement as a whole (Beavis and Butt-Head interrupts: "Heh-heh, he said 'as-a-hole,' heh-heh-heh!") is probably significant enough to be notable, but not most of the individual events. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good idea, perhaps replacing the "List of Regional Burning Man Events" with a "Summary of Regional Burn Events" page? Wiki4noise (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for that pretty easily. This title could then redirect to a section in that article. Anyone else have a comment on this idea? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect sounds like the ideal solution here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound like the best solution to merge & redirect the small, minimally-covered regionals to a bigger article. If there's any reliable sources out there that cover the satellite events as a general phenomenon, that would be excellent. — Scientizzle 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of these on AfD right now...just to centralize, the list is below (please add if I've missed some). — Scientizzle 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely merge and redirect this and all associated Burning Man articles up at AfD at the moment, unless reliable sources exist or have already been found on a case by case basis —αlεx•mullεr 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of these - failing notability check. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no sustainable notability. - Philippe | Talk 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Birch

I think this directly fails WP:BLP1E as there was nothing notable or extraordinary about the case of this particular woman killing her husband. I PRODed, creator removed it with note one where sources could be found, including one on line. While I don't know anything about the Toronto Sun as an RS, this article has phrasing that leaves me wondering about author professionalism specifically: Paul, I should point out, was one heck of an embalmer and One day, while working over a body, she gave Paul the high sign. He caught it, cherished it, and couldn't wait to introduce his cute colleague to more lively pursuits. The two commenced a prolonged affair. Regardless of source quality, I'm submitting this here for discussion especially reL: WP:BLP1E. Travellingcari (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the Toronto Sun article is of poor quality but Travellingcari had previously argued that the six references given in the original article were somehow suspect (as they pre-dated the internet) so I added the Toronto Sun to reassure her. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and I appreciate that, but that doesn't address my issue of BLP1E, she's notable for nothing else and other than the victim being 'one heck of an embalmer' there's nothing special about this case. If it were notable, sources would be easier to find because it would have been covered in greater depth. I know it's a stretch but these are two who come to mind first: Amy Fisher and Lorena Bobbit were pre-internet but there are sources online. Lisa Steinberg was murdered around the time Julie Birch killed, also pre-internet and there are sources online. Why? Because it was deemed worthy of continuing coverage, possibly due to notability. I still see no notability for this case. I realise you're the creator and therefore somewhat partial to it existing otherwise you wouldn't have created it, but I think my rationale still stands. Travellingcari (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are at least 66 pages in Category:English murderers. I don't see that this one is any different from the others. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doesn't mean they should, which doesn't make it a reason for keeping this one. How does otherstuff make this one not a BLP1E issue? Travellingcari (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remember this murder well. I read about it in the Daily Mirror at the time and it was covered in most of the nationals. Excuse My Dust (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how is it that none of the nationals are cited in it, only local papers? --Calton | Talk 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I see nothing notable about this crime. It clearly fails WP:BLP1E.BWH76 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another crime, fails WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no enduring notability. 202.81.69.153 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP1E. Jfire (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. seems to be a perfectly ordinary murder. In the absence of a standard of notability for crimes, I prefer that such articles demonstrate some sort of importance or relevance beyond just being in the news. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally think that BLP1E is abused and should be revoked, this meets our biographical guidelines for inclusion just fine. RFerreira (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than that sensationalistic Toronto article, I notice that all of the other refs are local papers, meaning it didn't seem to attract national attention in its own country; but regardless, yeah, just another garden-variety murder. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOTNEWS, local coverage only, another random murder. Note that BLP1E does not by itself necessitate deletion since that is about what we focus attention on if we choose to have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Covered by WP:NOT#NEWS. She has done nothing of lasting notability, and there is little evidence even of immediate notability.--Dycedarg ж 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep p 1 seems notable enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon's rock block

Non-notable college radio program. I've repeatedly suggested to the editor (who appears to be the DJ who hosts the show) that it should be merged into the article about the radio station, but he keeps removing the mergeto tag so, as I promised, I'm bringing it here. Corvus cornix_talk 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable radio show, the radio station itself is not notable so merger is not really an option. The only place it could go would be the colleges article but mentioning one non-notable show on the colleges radio station would not really be appropriate. Ridernyc (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reading the whole edit history, I agree with the COI, and this topic isn't really notable enough to be appropriate. ДҖ--Huanghe63^talk 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even close to notable. My radio show was on five nights a week, and it wasn't notable either. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also delete the other article by the same user with different capitalization. Jfire (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and COI issues abound. Bstone (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is kinda open and shut. Per above. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the newer/fully capitalized version. Delete the old version- Falcon's rock block I forgot to capitalize the name, thank you. But keep the latest version, I solved the COI issue by usuing a 3rd person writing style and a format similar to other radio shows. As far a notablility- all radio shows have local/regional interest, so deleting a show on a small radio station would open the doors to delete all shows that aren't nationally sindicated.Sbkbg (talk)

It's still not notable read WP:N, and it's still a COI read WP:COI, please actually read them before you post again. Ridernyc (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I probably would have supported a speedy. - Philippe | Talk 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with radio station article if even that. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —αlεx•mullεr 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followership

Surprisingly, this article has been around since 2004. Must have flown under everybody's radar because it's an unreferenced essay about what an ideal follower is. One possibility is to delete and temporarily recreate a redirect to leadership. Pichpich (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, no claim of notability (though one could likely be made), apparent personal essay. JJL (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "notability" means anything in this case. Followership is a neologism but one that is fairly common in business lingo. I'm not claiming that no article on the term should exist, but this one is beyond repair and there's no past revision to revert to. Pichpich (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an essay, maybe copied, not encyclopedic and would take a total rewrite to make it suitable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice essay! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - Philippe | Talk 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd's Triangle

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Floyd's Triangle

Non-notable triangle. :-) But seriously, trivial construct that is not commonly known under that name. The article consists mostly of Java and C++ code of no interest whatsoever. Claims of "subtle patterns" are probably intended as a joke. Pichpich (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Uninteresting, unencyclopedic, and unreferenced. I would have tried a prod first, but going straight to AfD is more reliable I suppose. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Paul August ☎ 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Itub's sources. Paul August ☎ 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. --Salix alba (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Itub's book references seem to establish notability.--Salix alba (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, yes, this is a pretty feeble article, and it could certainly use propping up. The topic, though, is legitimate. I quickly found about a half-dozen different mentions of "Floyd's Triangle" via Google, not counting quite a few requests for the proper method of programming it in one or another language. I failed to find any mention, though, of its origin as a test of programming skill or even the source of the name. The real value of the article consists of the two bits of program language, information in some demand. Let's keep it and hope for future improvement. If the triangle is better known under some other name, as Pichpich may imply, above, then that needs to be taken into consideration: change the article's name, or merge as appropriate. Tim Ross·^talk 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you'll be hard-pressed to find mentions of it via Google which are not internet forums where some lazy student asks for the code to do his assignment. An article is not legitimate just because someone teaching some first-year programming course asked this in assignment 1. Note that my Google search returns 50 unique hits, including a number of Wikipedia mirrors. There is simply nothing to say about such a trivial construct and that would actually explain why it probably doesn't have any universal name. Pichpich (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that anyone has quoted that Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide; so I will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ At the moment, non-notable and unsourced. If anyone can find and add any reliable sources that verify the name and demonstrate notability then I may reconsider my vote. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - changed vote after reviewing Itub's sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a dozen books mentioning it in Google books.[29], [30] Given the simplicity of the triangle, I don't expect it to become a huge article. Nevertheless, it seems to me a legitimately notable topic worth explaining in Wikipedia. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC) BTW, in case anyone's interested, the triangle is named after Robert Floyd, a notable computer scientist (in case anyone thought it was a high school kid named Floyd who invented it last year). --Itub (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Robert Floyd. Simplifies and places in context. Needs inline sources and thorough NPOV scrubbing. In general, info is good though, it just doesn't belong here in such context. `— BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect the definition to Robert Floyd (the cookbook Java code can remain in the answers section of freshman CS textbooks, I suppose). It must be a bit embarrassing to have left one's name to something like this, but the subject matter is too unsubtantial to warrant an encyclopedia article of its own. Bikasuishin (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thornafire

tagged for notability for 3 months no edits have been made to improve the article at all. Looking around I find a lot of Google hits but nothing notable, for example a total of 130 people have listened to their music according to last.fm, with one play for each song in the past week [31]. Beyond that I can't find much more then a few metal blogs reviewing the album. Seems they are not even well known in the metal world since I don't see any of the larger metal sites mentioning them. Ridernyc (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is established per WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. Grounded into a double play (talk)

Why? Icestorm815 • Talk 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just stalking me because I gave him warnings about disruptive editing, see [32] for the entire story. Ridernyc (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked indef. as a sock. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dismally fails WP:V. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bow Down (Mind of Mencia)

An article for a skit? Fails WP:MUSIC (as this is a music video skit), fails WP:PLOT TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee Dee-lete. Not notable as a music video skit; just a non-notable Mind of Mencia thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the skit a direct parody of the song? If so then merge to Bow Down (song). If not then delete per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, its a slight parody. But it is really a skit about Mencia rapping about how rappers who go to jail never rap about being in jail..TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep National ranked course, definately notable. Other issues can be cleaned up. -Djsasso (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estancia golf club

I confess to not being a golfer! This article is about a what seems to me to be a non-notable golf club and/or community. I have been unable to find any references from independent sources to suggest notability. A Google search for Estancia golf club returned 70 hits, all of directory entries or real estate sites. There is no suggestion that the golf course (or the community) are any different from any other. Emeraude (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly a non-notable site.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is spammy, but the course was ranked by Golf Digest as the best new private club for 1996 [33], it's currently ranked as the 81st best golf course in America [34], and it has other awards too.[35] So, It looks like a notable golf course to me. It does, however, appear to be usually referred to as "Estancia club", so a move may be in order.--Kubigula (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've cleaned it up a bit to remove the advertising and reference the claims to notability.--Kubigula (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a gated housing estate! Rambot's work is fine, but, honestly, an ad for a subdivision? I don't care who designed the golf course -- that would be a claim for the golf course's fame -- it's a housing estate, and they don't need our help in moving inventory. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the houseing estate is not significant. However, it shares a name with the golf course , which does seem to be notable.--Kubigula (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, I have clarified the notable golf course as a separate entity from the non-notable subdivision.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Golf Digest reference is great. Why is being continually re-listed? Catchpole (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can't remove my delete vote, because the article is still about moving housing units. If it's such a wonderful golf club, then just talk about the golf course, rename to Estancia (golf course), and explain why Golf Digest wants to praise it. They must have some reason, other than Tom Fazio's involvement. Is it supposed to be most challenging? Does it have the neatest greens? Are the pars perfectly designed? What? Utgard Loki (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- ESPN calls it the "Estancia Golf Club", while the other two sources above call it the "Estancia Club", so the title of the article is probably OK - even if it's purely about the course. At most, it could be move to "Estancia Club". As to your other points, the fact that it's a nationally ranked course that has been substantively discussed in several reliable sources seems quite sufficient to establish notability, which is the only real issue for this AfD. The rest are content issues to be addressed later. I'll flesh it out a bit if it's kept, but I hate to spend my energy otherwise.--Kubigula (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licia Troisi

Borderline notable Italian fantasy writer, 1,570 English Ghits but very little from reliable sources. No refs in current article, those in it:Licia Troisi are unimpressive - passing mentions. English article has already survived a prod, it may well be possible to demonstrate notability but like I say this one just feels very borderline. FlagSteward (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Its been on my watchlist for me to get around and AfD. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I saw her books in brick-and-mortar bookshops, and this is generally far more than what is requested for the notability of authors. You also forget to mention the reason I gave when removing the prod tag: "published 6 books with the second biggest Italian publisher" (the publisher is Mondadori [36]). Note that the number of English Google hits is irrelevant. This is the English version of an international encyclopedia, not an enclyclopedia for English-speaking countries. If something is notable for English-speaking people so is for people of other languages, and vice versa. Tizio 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishing books in itself does not establish notability, not even if they can be bought in a shop. You need independent, third-party reliable sources discussing her. And yes, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia - which means that as per Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time "what's listed should be notable both around the globe and throughout time. The items selected should be relevant to all Wikipedians, regardless of nationality, interests, and beliefs." Umberto Eco would be an example of an Italian writer who is of global notability; as yet we have had no indication that Ms Troisi is of similar stature. FlagSteward (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Publishing a series of books (rather than a single one) with an important publisher (rather than PublishAmerica or similar) is an indication of notability to me. Anyway, I believe there is a little disagreement over what's is important around the globe. I just followed the "random article" link and obtained Vest, Kentucky. Is this notable around the world? Judging from the number of people having discussed Troisi's books (in Italian, but we agree this is not important) the two are at least comparable as a global impact. Tizio 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think the Vest article should be deleted, then AfD it. But it's irrelevant to this debate, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As is the publishing of books - as per WP:BIO, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". If she's notable - and I repeat, I'm willing to be convinced that she is - then the coverage from independent, reliable sources will exist. If not, she's not. FlagSteward (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've seen the "keep because this other article exists" argument used many times, and I totally agree than two wrongs don't make a right. What I's saying is rather that one topic may be important even if it's only important on a somehow local scale. In this particular case, several people have discussed Troisi's work, such as [37][38][39] (the last comment is quite negative, which ironically show notability better than the others, since it's sure to be independent from the subject of the article). Tizio 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't quite work like that though - the geography articles are a bit of a special case, there's a "completeness" consideration which means that there should be an article about the municipal administration of every square metre on the planet. Thus Vest is there to "complete" coverage that began with Vladivostok and Rome. That completeness argument doesn't apply to people, otherwise WPBIO would have 6 billion articles! There's established guidelines for notability, you don't need to invent new ones by analogy with other fields - there needs to be multiple independent coverage from reliable sources. It's all about the quality of the sources - this debate is finished if you can demonstrate articles in La Stampa and La Repubblica that are principally about Ms Troisi (ie not a passing mention). See WP:SOURCES - it looks like your first reference from mangialibri.com is getting there, a dedicated books website has thought her notable enough to interview. Not a great source, but a start. On the other hand booksblog.it and zam.it are not suitable sources - see WP:SPS. Do you see the difference? It's all about the quality of the sources that are talking about her, La Stampa is good, a blog isn't. If she's notable, those articles will exist. FlagSteward (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Here you are: [40]. And no, finding it wasn't easy at all - having been referred in a printed newspaper and having the same article on the web are not quite the same. Tizio 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Bravo! That's the sort of thing we've been waiting to see, not the biggest article but La Stampa is as reliable a source as you'll get for stuff about Italy. Do you see the difference between that and zam.it?? That's the difference between notable and non-notable. Now, WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage in reliable sources", so technically we need another source of similar stature before the AFD can be withdrawn (and in English would be even better), but that La Stampa piece represents a massive step forward. Just make sure that it gets used in the article. :-)) Oh, and I'm not quite sure what you're saying about the online thing, it's quite OK to give references to things that only exist on paper if it's a good source that can be checked by other people, but obviously it's easier to check if it's online at an authoritative website like that of La Stampa. Best wishes. FlagSteward (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are still missing my point. At this point I have lost any hope you will. We don't require a notability check for every single article; not every article pass through AfD. I've been around AfD for a couple of years now, and this has always been the case. This is the rationale beyond the "speedy keep" closure; in some cases, there is no point in following the letter of the policy while evidence is that its spirit is followed. For an author who have published 6 books with a publisher which is comparable to, say, Ballantine Books relative to the size of the country, there shouldn't be any need to insiste for a proof of notability. So, no, I am not wasting any more time for a second reference while even one should not have been necessary. Tizio 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Authoring six books published by a major publisher isn't just "an indication of notability" (per Tizio) -- it establishes notability. I can't imagine a circumstance in which it wouldn't be worthwhile to give our readers available bio information about such an author. JamesMLane t c 14:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't have quite such precisely defined notability guidelines for authors as we do for the latest punk garage death groove metal bands (or whatever the latest sub-sub-sub-sub-genre is), but by analogy with the requirements of WP:MUSIC, which states that such a band is notable if it "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels", we should treat an author as notable who has had two or more books published by a major publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tizio. Also, it should be kept in mind that most Italian newspapers don't keep a web version, differently from the US. Anyways, at least one of his books has been translated and reviewed also in Spanish[41].--Aldux (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the full series has also been translated in German[42].--Aldux (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep six books with Mondadori are enough to establish notability. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, but article could use some expansion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments for keep based on notability guidelines are pretty strong. There are some valid concerns about COI and self-promotion (though less so after the cleanup), but those are more editorial issues than AfD issues.--Kubigula (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Beaker

Not notable. Article was created to self-promote. Enigma ^msg! 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the claims in the article can be confirmed. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Norman+Beaker%22+guitar --Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A side man with a band is a grand thing, but a press clipping from a promotional website being pasted into Wikipedia is not. "Recorded with" usually means "uncredited," and many great men and women have been obscured that way, but it is not Wikipedia's job to set the record straight, to forge new ground, to provide original research nor verify claims. The article is a squished potato and not anywhere near encyclopedic standards. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So Norman Beaker was a "side man" with the Norman Beaker Band? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As of now I'd have to go with delete. The article is pitiful. However, if this person is real (and notable) and you can find enough info on them go ahead and make the article again, but this time, better. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per what I said above. I don't think he's notable, and he started his own page to self-promote. Probably a good sign you're not notable when that happens. Enigma ^msg! 00:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A extremely brief search reveals he is listed in a book called The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 by Andy Gregory and published by Routledge. [43], as well as listed in Google news archives search. [44] I will look for more and begin cleaning up the article. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, he is listed in at least four other books (6 total; 2 unsure)..... [45]. What ever happened to WP:Assume Good Faith and at least taking a few minutes to research a topic before nominating for deletion? In conclusion, this artist has been written about in multiple reliable third-party souces and thereby passes WP:BIO and WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence of notability: AMG credits, plus he has recorded on at least two notable record labels, JSP Records and Delicious Vinyl. Notability is further established per WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The label his record is on is Delicious, not Delicious Vinyl. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable self promo. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have proven where this artist meets WP:Music at multiple levels. Can you prove where he fails it? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have proven where this artist meets WP:Music at multiple levels. Can you prove where he fails it? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, congrats on becoming an new administrator as of yesterday. [46] You really should know better than to participate in a debate without providing Wikipedia guidelines to back up your argument. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. He just was named admin. Can you at least wait a few days before the "an admin should know better" attacks start? ;) Enigma ^msg! 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. Have any of the delete !voters actually read the article and the sources? Passes WP:MUSIC on albums, touring and other points, and anyway easily passes general WP:N and WP:BIO standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you. In all fairness, the article was a mess when the delete voters prior to my keep reasoning saw it, and I have since attempted cleanup and added sources. I have asked them to revisit the article and this debate. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the history before making accusations. The article was total crap and deserved to be deleted. As has happened many times in the past, the only way to get someone to look at an article and improve it is to nominate it for deletion. Cricket has now, to his credit, made some good improvements, and the article is now arguably up to standards. Acting like the article is in great shape and everyone who voted to delete didn't bother to read the article is acting in really poor taste and shows a lack of judgment and research on your part. Enigma ^msg! 17:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I retract my comments with respect to those who said "delete" before Cricket02's improvements. They still stand for those who did so afterwards. As regards the statement "the only way to get someone to look at an article and improve it is to nominate it for deletion", why not look for sources and improve it yourself? We're all volunteers here, so it's just as much your responsibility as it it Cricket02's or anyone else's to improve it. The sources were readily available with a couple of quick searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone except the last one voted Delete before Cricket improved the page. Yes, we're all volunteers here, but I don't generally write new articles. I've never done it before. I focus on reverting vandalism, warning vandals, and making corrections to articles that have a structure. If I see an article that's a mess, I'm more likely to nominate it at AfD (this is my second AfD nom) than rewrite it. Finally, there are still some concerns about the notability. When I nominated it, the article was not only garbage, but I also noticed that it appeared to have been written by Norman Beaker himself. That's a red flag for me. Enigma ^msg! 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanted to comment on your last sentence. You used the word 'responsibility'. It's no one's responsibility to make sure there's an article on anything whatsoever. It's not Cricket's responsibility, and it's certainly not mine. I'm sure there are articles here that have not been created yet, that should be created, but it's not my responsibility. The only way you could say someone is responsible for it would be if they were being paid to keep the encyclopedia up to date and complete. Enigma ^msg! 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly my point. Who is this "someone" that you are trying to get to look at an article and improve it? It's nobody's responsibility to improve an article, so if you think an article should be improved then you should have a go at doing it. Try it; it's much more fun than getting articles deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no someone. I was pointing out that it's a common occurrence for an editor to see an AfD and then improve the article. Say for whatever reason, I didn't want to write the article. Posting on the article's Talk page does nothing. So then what? I see WP:Bold mentioned often. I don't think I'm lacking that, but what I am lacking is the right way to write an article on Wikipedia. Enigma ^msg! 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an nn with COI issues. Fair Deal (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You didn't look at the article at all. There are no WP:COI issues now, the article is completely neutral. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally I err on the side of supporting the inclusion of borderline cases like this. However, the fact remains that he is essentially a not very notable sideman who sometimes fronts his own band. Given his tendency for self-promotion I am not convinced that a number of the other references cited don't exist through his own efforts either. What sways the argument for me is his persistent refusal (and that of his friends) to ignore all WP:COI and other guidelines, despite polite requests to do so, not only on his own article but also in other articles such as Alexis Korner and List of blues musicians. If this article remains, I have no doubt that he will use its very existence to assert his notability elsewhere ("I'm famous because I've got a Wikipedia article") in further self-promotion. Unfortunately, Mr Beaker's own attitude and disrespect for consensual guidelines isn't doing him any favours here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Borderline case?" Did you know the Wikipedia guidelines when you first signed on? I sure didn't. My first article was shear crap. So maybe you are biting the newcomer. Regardless of whether this subject edited his own article, the fact remains that he clearly passes Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion per WP:BIO and WP:Music per my evidence above, i.e. (book source The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 is not good enough for you?). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - keep (slightly reluctantly, given the circumstances). Although it's getting a little difficult to tease out the merits of the article from the personal barbs now, Cricket02 has done a good job in improving the article from the initial vanity puff, and I do now accept there is some evidence of sufficient notability for a brief article on this person - but it will need to be kept an eye on, and should not be taken as meaning that Mr Beaker needs to be mentioned in every article with which he can claim some small connection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be anything that makes Norman Beaker notable, he is a hired sidesman, who's notability is based on reflected glory, rather than anything he has done. I also must take on board that the article is created for self-promotion. It's no different from individual band members not getting articles because they are not notable individually. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now, that is just a flat out mean comment to make yourself feel bigger. You haven't even looked at the sources have you. I vote delete on these things more times than not but this subject is notable enough for this experienced music-related editor to adopt his article so there shouldn't be any more COI issues. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming Cricket02's comment was directed at me, I have re-read the sources and I am doubly convinced that Mr. Beaker is not notable with the evidence supplied. With due respect, a listing in music-specific book does not necessarily transfer to a general encyclopedia. OTOH I am willing to have my mind changed --Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forget the sources for the time being, re-read WP:MUSIC (#1, #4, #5 (3 albums under NBB), #7 (blues music in NW England)) which seems to say that he meets the notability requirements easily. Additionally, badly written and CoI is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to rewrite if the article's subject meets notability requirements, which Beaker does easily. --WebHamster04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Seal Clubber (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Norman Beaker is one of the British Blues greats, not to mention the North-West, not only that he meets WP:MUSIC if only on the number of albums he has released. --WebHamster04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems notable enough, but more information about the individual would be useful. Clean up the inline citations. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woolag

Seems to be a nonexistent religion, no related G-hits, maybe a hoax? Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 02:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources on "Woolag." This article most likely is a hoax. Jd027^chat 02:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google comes up with a whopping 53 hits on "Woolag", several of which aren't even in English. I do believe this is complete nonsense. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing comes up upon searching this term. Possible hoax, questionable veracity. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, clearly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Some folks really do have too much time on their hands. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear hoax----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for the obvious reasons. RFerreira (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been speedy deleted a long time ago. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, though content may also be merged as appropriate. Instructions for merging have been left at the album article talk pages. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Movement (Jumping Biz)

A long story goes with these articles. Some ELO fans decided to make an article for almost every ELO song released regardless if it wasn't released as a single. At first, I kind of ignored it and waited for more information to be added. Months passed and nothing. I decided to add verifiability templates and it would just lead to the ELO fans reverting my edits. Then, someone prodded the articles and sure enough someone reverted them. Now the articles end up here on AfD. These article above fail WP:N as the song was not released as a single and/or charted on any music charts and I am also including the songs below for the same reasons:

Merge/Redirect Across the Border, Oh No Not Susan, and Queen of the Hours to their respective albums. The others, that don't have searchable terms, should be Merged to their respective albums and Deleted. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Due to GFDL legal compliance mumbojumbo, merging then deleting is not an option. -- saberwyn 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All (and merge if relevant) to their respective albums, as plausible search terms. -- saberwyn 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Also for all related content in the same manner. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable song. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW and obvious notability per WP:CORP. (non-admin) brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SkyEurope

Just another low cost carrier, nothing notable about this one. Bananaqueen (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Possibly a disruptive nom. This airline is clearly notable, and many reliable sources are present in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep - An admin needs to close this. Clearly notable, reliable sources, it's a functioning airline - that's notable within itself, even though not here on the encyclopedia. Seriously, no notability issues here per WP:CORP. Jd027^chat 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article more than justifies notability. I'd have closed this myself, but for the small number of comments so far. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator's only contributions are this AfD and another one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melchior Polowy. --Eastmain (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I worked on it recently. I think I could have done more but I ran against pay gates. Still, first multi-based airline in Central Europe as well as one of the first to based in Slovakia make it notable and are sourced, among other claims. I welcome suggestions for improvement. Travellingcari (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior Polowy

Is hs wrestling in Louisiana notable? That's the question Bananaqueen (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub, but it's enough to assert his notability through the sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's moved beyond Louisiana. He was inducted in the National Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I worked on this article when I found it in the backlog and sourced it. What little is there is what little I found apart from sources connected with the school and the Brother Melchior society. I removed the notability tag for hois role in bringing HS wrestling to Louisiana but unless someone is local and can get access to archives from his coaching time in the 40s-60s, I have doubts this will ever be more than a (sourced) stub. Travellingcari (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The book about him is pretty decent testimonial, even though I suspect that it's a niche publication. This is about as close to the border as we should go, I think. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agios Athanasios (Kavala city), Greece

Delete unsourced article about a road without indication of why this road is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete roadcruft in Greece. Punkmorten (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A3, A1, and A7: "X is a street" is not exactly informative, and when it says "it goes from [local name for place] to [local name for place]," it's less than informative. This looks like schoolboy idleness and not an attempt at an article. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears merely to be an NN urban street. Re-creation would be acceptable if there is something substantial to say about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. notability has not been demonstrated. - Philippe | Talk 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Dunn

Contested prod, article does not assert notability. Roleplayer (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Dunn is an extremely famous and important lawyer. He is known all throughout New Jersey, especially Somerset County. I don't think that Roleplayer is from New Jersey so obviously he doesn't even have any idea as to who Robert E. Dunn is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Venterius (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability needs to apply to more than a local area. Being well-known in Somerset County isn't enough to justify his inclusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not justify notability. The first site isn't third-party, the second site is just a business listing and doesn't really say anything, and the NY Times link doesn't even mention him, but one of his colleagues, so I have no idea why it's being used as a reference. I'm not getting anything on Google but other people, either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't really establish notability. References don't show substantial coverage. He isn't the subject of the sources provided.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Robert Dunn had an important role in the Sean Combs case back in 2001. He is not just notable in New Jersey, but the entire North East. He has had several important murder cases in the last twenty years. I am in the process of going through paperwork relating to him that I recieved from my father who was Dunn's boss for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thriley (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Let me know if you find any articles relating to him in the Star Ledger or New York Times. I definitely know of reading of some in the Star Ledger, but I'm pretty sure that there were some in the Times as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venterius (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let us know when this person generates non-trivial discussion by third party sources, not when he is standing in the courtroom with someone famous. I met Joe Strummer, and Joe Strummer met Paul McCartney, and Paul McCartney knows the queen of England: I cannot get an article that way. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know what else to say except that this article needs more time. I know the sources which were cited are really bad, but he was once on the front page of the Star Ledger for helping to represent I. Kathleen Hagen, and there have been articles about him in the New York Times as well. In all seriousness I don't see as to why Johnnie Cochran should have his own article if Robert E. Dunn can't. We just need to gather more and better sources. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Venterius (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a search of the New York Times online digital archive returns this hit: [47], which although it shows that this person exists does not assert notability as the article is not about him, it merely mentions his name. It is the only hit on his name in the database and I assume there are hundreds of lawyers mentioned in NYT on a regular basis: they don't all deserve Wikipedia articles. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the only article about Robert E. Dunn. It's not like NY Times saves every single article they have online. There are articles about him that date back to the early 90's, but I doubt you'll be able to find them on the NY Times website. If You give me time I'll look for and cite sources of him from actual printed newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venterius (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable attorney with notable clients supported by reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Appears to just about scrape through WP:MUSIC Black Kite 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Dalla-Vee

Non-notable musician. Has not received coverage by reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject. A web search only turns up 931 web pages and one news article, none go beyond trivial coverage. Only notability he may pass is music criteria eleven by being placed in rotation by a national tv network, but nothing to substantiate that, and the only info from the network's site is the same brief info.[48] and ( Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ) Optigan13 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never heard of Mick Dalla-Vee, but Google'ing him brings up 1,070 web pages. Yahoo has 930. He's also been a member of various bands and worked with various people who are in Wikipedia, so my opinion is to keep the page. Scoty6776 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of all the Google search results, none of the pages that aren't made by Dalla-Vee or someone he isn't associated with. The number of WP:GOOGLEHITS are not a criteria for notability in most instances. I don't see any notable bands that he is linked to. The only notable acts he is associated with is by sharing a common manager, which is a very tenuous association. It says he has contributed to a Motley Crue album but does not explain how he specifically did, and I can not locate any information to verify this. The only credible thing that can be verified from the numerous hits is that he released an album entitled A Whistler's Christmas. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately much of the article remains unreferenced, but I have now added five references to articles in major Canadian newspapers, including one about his daughter's death (and how his fellow musicians came together to fundraise), some examples of mentions of him being part of Randy Bachman's band, one that discusses his songwriting in a CD review, and one that is about Revolver, another band he was in. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean up. Between the references, awards and participation with Juno, it looks like there is enough here to just meet the notability guidelines. It appears the subject himself started the article, so clean up is needed if it's kept.--Kubigula (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. notability has not been proven. - Philippe | Talk 04:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interhall Council

Fails to satisfy notability criterion, specifically WP:ORG because it has no secondary sources and "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". No independent sources were found on Google or the article itself. This is a generic local organization that is encompassed by Residence hall association Noetic Sage 05:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to University of Guelph. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to U-Guelph. There's no telling how many universities have bodies by this same name, or very close. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We can't merge and delete, so delete. Honestly, it's just a facet of campus life... everywhere. It's certainly not the first one, best one, or the one we're all talking about. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY, but needs more sources. Just because it needs sources though, doesn't mean it should be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao Mastani

Explicitly fails future films guidelines. Indeed, a situation exactly like this is why the guideline was created in the first place. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On-off project that appears to go back as far as 2003, but as far as I can tell has yet to get off the ground. Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just what WP:NFF intends. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Planned to start filming in 2007" is about all we need to know. There is no reason to believe that this is "Spiderman 4," and there is no reason for us to have even that. Hence, a clear delete as a rumor rather than a fact. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the future film notability guidelines. As always, no problem with recreation once primary production starts on the film. Xymmax (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tremec T-45 transmission

This article is about a particular transmission. No sources are provided that explain why this transmission is notable above other transmissions. Perhaps a transmission could be more important to automotive buffs than, say, a starter motor, but in my opinion, without an independent source that establishes notability, this article should be deleted. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a brand name, and hence the article, which is NPOV, still acts either as an ad or a bit of trivia. If this is a novel form of transmission, it should be detailed in automotive transmission. Breaking it free really does not serve the general usefulness of the information. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per above — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmetto Grand Prix

Cannot find any references for this article. The only Palmetto Grand Prix I can find reference to is a 5 km running race. Severo^TC 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1, insufficient context, so tagged. I can't find any info on a cycling race of this name at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I disagree with the removal of the A1 tag. However, there is still very little context about this race, and it utterly fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per TPH. Two sentences do not an article make. I guess the two sentences do provide enough info to tell you what it is, hence the refusal of A1, but this is still sub-stub without references, notability, etc. and so forth. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no context, not much of anything. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Substub, promotional. (Why would you race palmetto bugs? They don't fly straight.) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and no notability Travellingcari (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet...well, everything: WP:V, WP:NOTE, etc. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Miller

Non-notable radio presenter. Portglasgow (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Belfast CityBeat. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: A DJ, and ballooning an article with a profile of every employee would be pretty undue. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local radio worker, no sign that she's known outside the region -- or even within it, come to think, since the article looks merely like a directory listing. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Hyndman

Non-notable. Hardly any ghits. Originally PRODded, but PROD rv by anonymous IP user. Portglasgow (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Belfast CityBeat. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect only: A DJ. Too local, too usual, to be encyclopedic. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Belfast CityBeat — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daecaunt

Despite the hype the article gives him, he is nothing more than yet another MySpace artist. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now, the blue links in the article are instruments, mostly. At the moment the described artist fails to meet the criteria of notability for musicians/bands. Pundit|utter 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be an unsigned MySpace artist who has yet to release anything. I don't see anything that passes the criteria at WP:MUSIC. PC78 (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I discovered daecaunt in a full page article in "mass histeria magazine" and upon research found his growing popularity in the underground goth scene to be notable. He's been on the top 10 unsigned music charts on myspace for classical, folk, and gothic genres for months now. He also has a rather notable google presence. Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only WP:MUSIC criteria he comes close to meeting is #7: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" (if you consider MySpace to be a city, which is a huge stretch in itself), but according to one of the references, he's no longer in the top 10, which invalidates his only claim to notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for above comment and notability. As my article states, he is in the top 10 of unsigned artists for his genres. You must specify the search criteria as "any country" for location and either "classical", "gothic", or "folk" for genre. He is currently #2 in classical, #3 in gothic, and #8 in folk. Hope this helps. Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a MySpace artist, so remove for non-notability. To author: will not prevent article being recreated if and when artist becomes notable - Fritzpoll (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsigned, undistributed, MySpace generated artist. No empirical evidence of notability, and web hits are utterly illusory when dealing with web artists. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are other "unsigned" myspace artists who have wikipedia entries (with far less references, information, and web presence as well as fans than this one). Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another myspace artist. Unsigned and nothing notable such as an actual album release. BalazsH (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argumentative Note "Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article that fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7." -quoting WP:MUSIC What or who determines that a subject is important or significant? (if not the curiosity of exposed fans of any interactive subject such as an accomplishing artist?)

From WP:MUSIC, there is a list of criteria that the community have agreed determine notability for a band or musicians. A judgement is made by the community in debates such as these whether or not an article meets at least one of the required criteria, as I understand it. - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tough cookie to crack. No "A" for effort? ;) This is neat though. I never knew wikipedia was so interactive a community. :D The deletion guidline link says 5 days of deliberation before a decision is cast by an editor? Does the decision usually follow pretty quickly on the 5th or 6th day? thanks Gothicrose1970 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for professionalism and patience to everyone involved here. I am new at writing and editing here and am learning a great deal through this process. Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I realize I'm going against the grain here, but top ten artists are certainly notable, IMHO. As a note for Gothicrose1970, make a copy of this article on one of your user pages and continue to work on it. Even if it is deleted, you can improve it and put it back at a later time, but your work isn't completely lost. Who knows, he and his group might become the next Beatles?! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that being a "top ten unsigned artist on MySpace" indicated a lack of notability, because he is unsigned (per WP:MUSIC). Could you clarify what you mean? Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TYBQZip01. I did save my work on the article so far, and ty for the suggestion. Fitzpoll, just for reference' sake, go to myspace and look under the top 10 unsigned for several genres and do a wiki-search on them. Many to most of them (who have never been signed to a label) pop up on wiki. Alot of artists are not signing to labels anymore because of the cons, especially since an artist can save thousands releasing it themselves online. An extreme example of this would be the band "Evan and Jaron" who have exclusively resorted to their myspace account as their only contact revenue; and have officially "unsigned" themselves from the label scene. Technically speaking, they too are -as you put it- "just a myspace artist." Gothicrose1970 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the article under discussion adn Evan and Jaron is that the latter have released albums, and are also notable for television appearances. For clarity, I'm not saying that artists have to be signed to be notable, since this is not the only criterion in WP:MUSIC - but the artist under discussion does not appear to meet any of the possible criteria under the guidelines. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the exception of the Mass Hysteria link, all references are from self-published sources, mostly MySpace. There is some evidence from the MySpace pages that this guy is getting popular, but that's original research. As per WP:CRYSTAL, if this guy gets significant media coverage in the future, the article can always be recreated. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A3 by User:VirtualSteve, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatraopally

Not a notable village. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention in good faith that a rationale may be appropriate. It can be found here as a breakdown of the contributions to this discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III

AfDs for this article:

Clear WP:COATRACK for person with no notability on his own. Notability is not inherited, and being mentioned in a presidential candidate's speech does not make one notable. At any rate, this article uses a weak rationale for notability to squeeze-in WP:BLP-sensitive information that is not appropriate. This is the 8th nomination at AfD for this article, all previous AfD's are linked on the article talkpage. Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "He is known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention." - ah, cummon, if we consider this constitutes notability then we may as well give up on the pretence of having objective standards. TerriersFan (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I agree that the claim to notability presently in the lead of the article is weak and should be reworked. This article hasn't changed substantially since the previous AfD so this AfD is unwarranted. My remarks from previous AfDs: Troublesomely trouble-prone relatives of notable biography subjects are in themselves notable when they receive extensive press and enter the popular lexicon (i.e., become the butt of late-night comedian jokes, are mentioned as clues on Jeopardy!, etc.). There are two examples that I think no one would disagree are notable: Jimmy Carter brother Billy and Bill Clinton brother Roger. Both have articles on Wikipedia, neither of which gives especial weight to biographical details apart from their eccentricities characterized at some time as being "embarrassing" to their presidential siblings. Billy was not primarily notable as a beer spokesman; that notability was secondary to his press-getting antics, the repetitive use of his name as a gag on Saturday Night Live and Match Game, and, ultimately, the Billygate scandal. Roger is not primarily notable for his rock band and acting career; he is notable as the child-abused, substance-abusive half-brother of the president who was included in a set of controversial pardons made as the sun set on the Clinton administration. Stating these notable facts in the articles on the subjects is not NNPOV, the articles for the presidential brothers could not be merged into the articles on their respective presidents because the material would be out of place there (in fact no details of either Roger or Billy—only mere mentions—are presently found in Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter), and the brothers are independently notable (i.e., their names are sufficiently well known to be the punchlines of jokes and the answers to trivia questions). The pertinent definition of coatrack (which, strictly speaking, is an essay and should not in and of itself dictate this decision-making process) is that a coatrack article "fails to give a truthful impression of the subject", and to the best of the knowledge of history, the nominated articles and the abovementioned examples do give truthful impressions of their subjects. Nor do any of them violate the spirit of BLP, which is intended to prevent rumor and libel from entering Wikipedia. At no point it its edit history was Al Gore III coatrack, as it never violated WP:NPOV, it only ever presented reported facts in a neutral, unbiased way, they never took on a politicized slant or included judgmental language, and they were never given undue weight. (It was actually the imputed perception of the facts as constituting bias that was the bias.) Robert K S (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Neutral point of view does not refer only to the phraseology and verifiability of the material presented. It refers to the whole picture created by the pieces presented. A persons whole life summarized on Wikipedia as a list of times his minor injuries caused somebody else a schedule delay, and every misdemeanor infraction of the law is not a neutrally painted picture. He probably has hobbies, is capable at certain sports or crafts, and likes either dogs or cats, too. But that't not notable, you'd say... well niether is possession of a small quantity of marijuana. We do not make articles about everyone who gets busted with marijane and receives a sentence of drug abuse counseling. "He sprained his ankle is 2000"... OMG I should have an article... I sprained my ankle in 2000 also... I was roller-blading. You gonna write the Jerry article? JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when Jerry repeatedly makes national news, is covered by all the major news networks and the wire, we'll write the Jerry article, because then Jerry will have achieved notability by definition: he will have been noted. Fighting this article on non-notability grounds is patently silly and has never reached consensus in 7 AfDs. Robert K S (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what if my mother becomes the next Pope? Would you then make an article from verifiable court records of my parking tickets, j-walking charge, and let's not forget my sprained ankle from 2000! How about a category Category:People who sprained their ankle in 2000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry (talk • contribs) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any real assertion of independant notability here. Besides his parentage, it seems that the only things to say about him are a couple of injuries and minor offences, which is the stuff of tabloid newspapers, not encyclopedias. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTNEWS. PC78 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have long wished this page deleted or merged with Al Gore. Non-public figure, non-notable on the merits. Page has long served as a coatrack for negative sentiments, IMHO. Talk page archives, while overly sanitized, reflect partisan bitterness. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as coatrack page, no notability outside of being a member of Al Gore's family. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. But if the consensus is to delete, I suggest merging it into his fathers article and turning this page into a redirect (which is what usually happenes in AFDs for family members of notable people). TJ Spyke 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough is enough already. Double-digit AFD nominations and the article is still here? Give it up already. Otto4711 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I never participated in any of the previous debates. So there is nothing for me to "Give it up already". How about participate in this discussion with some rationale for keep aside from we have always kept it in the past. Under your logic we would never improve, we would just give up and accept a quagmire. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, 8 isn't double digits, but I've never seen an article nominated THAT many times for a deletion. And what's up with this "Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should"? Keep relisting this until you get the result that "should" have happened the first seven times? Like Otto says, give it up already. (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you did ask "what's up with this Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should?

3 of the previous 7 AfD's were closed as No consensus, including the most-recent one, in July 2007.
Consensus can change. There is even a picture linked in the consensus policy that shows it: Image:Consensus new and old.svg.
Over time, as we grow (we recently topped 2,222,222 articles, and 200,000,000 edits), we must take a new look at how we have done. I think in this specific case, where Al Gore is no longer a candidate for president, we can take a new look at this, and realize that the subject of this article never really did meet our notability criteria... it is just perhaps more obvious now, since the fog of tabloid coverage has settled.

JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same as before, just go and cut and paste it back here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste a no consensus outcome? That does not seem like sound advice. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he could save us all the trouble and cut and paste it himself rather than relying on our mind-reading skills to figure out what he means. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge important info to Al Gore and Delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Al Gore. Despite occasional references to him in speeches, etc., by his father, Al III has basically remained out of the public spotlight. I don't see how he qualifies under WP:BIO. He barely receives sufficient media coverage for the public to keep track of what his job is, which seems to be working for an obscure magazine. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Relationship does not confer notability. Notability is not inherited. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for really major political figures, their immediate families are notable. DGG (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep he's not really important at all, but he gets nationwide news coverage, international even, even if its only because of his daddy, he is noted and therefore notable.420 rocks...but adderall?! damnBoomgaylove (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. The refusal to accept the results of the seven previous AfDs only spits in the face of any meaningful interpretation. The refusal to accept previous results and to persist in pushing for deletion until the desired result is achieved is inherently disruptive and one of the clearest violations of WP:POINT possible. Alansohn (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget to exhale, Alansohn. I think that you are wrong. Refusal to accept no consensus is actually a pretty good idea, and does not disrupt anything or anyone. Why don't you go think about it for a little while and then come back and strikethrough that comment? JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Let me amplify my comments. Once you get past two or three AfDs that end as keep, any subsequent AfD is just another stab at trying to find the result you want in complete disregard of established consensus. This abusive practice of creating new AfDs after previous attempts at deletion have failed is completely and utterly disruptive to any meaningful definition of the word "consensus". After all, even if those abusing this process are successful at deletion of the article, why should it not simply be recreated with minor improvements and the cycle started all over again? When will it finally be recognized that you can't keep trying to change the result simply because you disrespect consensus. "Consensus can change" is a complete and total cop out for saying I simply don't give a crap about consensus. Alansohn (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, and indeed even our policies, can change in 3 years, Alansohn. We are not even close to the same encyclopedia that we were in 2005. A bad decision yesterday does not make a tidal current that we can not swim against today. And a good decision yesterday may not be a good decision today. Many of the reasons for keep in the earlier AfD's were based on "allow it time to be improved". If we were allowed to go back and ask those people to participate today, we might know if their consensus-forming input has changed. I suspect in many if not most cases, it would. But we cant do that, and those people may no longer be here anyway. So we have to start anew. When an editor in good faith believes that an article is tacitly unencyclopedic, and for the very first time ever nominates it for deletion, for you to make such accusations is a very wrong thing. I would therefore ask you to once again, please go exhale! Don't panic! And go sit somewhere quietly and think about what you are saying... you are accusing an editor with 14000+ edits, an administrator, somebody who has never been involved in editing or nominating or !voting on this article or any like it, of disruptive behavior. I object to your commenting on me and my motivations here, instead of the article and the merits of same. This is a process where we discuss articles and article subjects, damnit, and not eachother. So please cowboy up and get over it and stop the nonsense. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this same article has changed over the past three years, improved over the past three years and successfully passed AfDs on multiple occasions over the past three years. I understand that you don't like this article. The problem with the "consensus can change" line used as an excuse for this latest stab at deletion is that all it means is "I don't give a crap about consensus, all I want is for the article to be deleted". When the same article is targeted multiple times (this one is up to a staggering eight), the broad base of evidence is that a clear consensus has been established. To undermine this precedent, policy requires that you demonstrate what has changed to justify taking another stab at deletion. Sure, if you keep on trying long enough, you'll find enough people to delete anything, but all you will have proven is that one time out of eight consensus is on your side. Consensus is the bedrock foundation of Wikipedia policy. If every single precedent can be arbitrarily changed based on which way the wind blows any one day, consensus is worthless. And if this article is deleted, why should the one-time consensus be respected in any way and the article not immediately recreated? Isn't it time for you to exhale and respect consensus after your position has been rejected by the community a half-dozen previous times? When you start an AfD and you see that you are not the first (or second, or third...) person to try deleting the article, you are being sent a rather clear message that further attempts at deletion will be justifiably perceived as disruptive. This is just about a textbook definition of WP:POINT. Maybe after a half-dozen AfDs that disagree with your interpretation, it's time to respect consensus and move on? Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent" states it best: "It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works." Alansohn (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How you can say that a "no consensus" close 7 months ago is a clear indicator that there is consensus is beyond me. I have asked you to refocus on the article and specifically to stop commenting on what you think is going on in my mind, and yet you make the extreme bad faith comment that "I don't give a crap about consensus, all I want is for the article to be deleted." I am afraid there is no way to assume good faith on that one, AlanSohn. You are out of line, you are making me angry, and this conversation needs to stop happening on this page. Period. And that's all I have to say about that. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn might be reluctant to respond to that, but I'm not. You don't seem to have a problem with ridiculing persons who disagree with you ("You gonna write the Jerry article?", "that is not sound advice", "under your logic we would never improve"; "Please do not forget to exhale, Alansohn", etc.). I think WP:CIVIL applies to you as well. I agree with Alansohn on WP:POINT, the first part of which is "State your point; don't prove it experimentally". To some of us, this looks like an experiment to test the proposition that "consensus can change" Mandsford (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, man. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent notability. The sources don't allow writing anything substantial about him other that the list of accidents and troubles with the law that he has had. We should have a WP:NOT#TABLOID. --Itub (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An assistant editor. That's all we need to know, because that is all that he has accomplished so far. I'm sure he'll be a force for good in the world, but right now he's a young man. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "evidence" would that be? --Calton | Talk 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has ample evidence. Here's a name check from just a few days ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for that source. But question: How is an article about the current president of the United States talking to prison inmates about his former alcohol problem useful as a reference with the sunject of this article? JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference cites Al Gore III as an example alongside other notable persons such as George W Bush and Rush Limbaugh. This demonstrates the continuing notability of this person. He is noticed therefore he is notable. Someone reading this item might then come here to find out more about this person. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not discuss him at all, it just mentions his name with no explanation for the reference. It says "George W. Bush, Al Gore III, Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy all remind us that anyone can be susceptible to drug problems". Not one other word about him is there. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author references Al Gore III alongside other famous folk, presuming that the reader knows who he is. This casual usage is a good indicator of notability. But non-Americans or future historians will not readily know who this person is and might easily confuse him with one of the other Al Gores. The article fulfils the proper purpose of providing a neutral account of this person and why he so often appears in the press. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go again calling this article neutral.

"Neutral point of view does not refer only to the phraseology and verifiability of the material presented. It refers to the whole picture created by the pieces presented. A persons whole life summarized on Wikipedia as a list of times his minor injuries caused somebody else a schedule delay, and every misdemeanor infraction of the law is not a neutrally painted picture. He probably has hobbies, is capable at certain sports or crafts, and likes either dogs or cats, too. But that't not notable, you'd say... well niether is possession of a small quantity of marijuana. We do not make articles about everyone who gets busted with marijane and receives a sentence of drug abuse counseling." JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The treatment is in accordance with the policy of WP:BLP: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. So, what the article is doing is presenting the notable material in a neutral manner. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked the correct policy, and quoted it correctly. The point you are not seeming to put together is that this material is not notable. Arrests for minor drug possession are not notable, etc. So we should omit the information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability, after which, we will have an empty article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You completely fail to understand the policy at hand. It doesn't matter whether or not YOU think the subject is important. The question is independent media coverage. The media clearly finds Gore 3 to be a consistent subject for news coverage and has done so on multiple occasions. It's instructive that no one has even bothered to use WP:BLP1E as an excuse for deletion. All we have here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT compounded by blatant disrespect for any definition of the WP:CONSENSUS policy. The fact that the "consensus can change" argument is refuted by "It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works." and that there has been no response to this clearest possible rejection of an eighth AfD demonstrates a clear issue of bad faith here. If this is an example of trying to find consensus the eighth time around, then consensus is a worthless steaming pile of crap. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ordinary, normal, customary, usual, expectable, and reasonable that after a no consensus close at AfD, following a reasonable period of time (usually 6 months) to allow for article omprovement, if the article has not indeed significantly improved, to reevaluate it in another AfD. We do not normally drop the issue after a no consensus close, unless the article changes to address the problems raised, unless policy, guideline or precedent have changed such that the concerns are now moot. This AfD, albeit the 8th, should not have been a surprise to anyone, because of the no consensus close last time. What would be unusual, is if this AfD did not occur. We do not leave things out there with no consensus all that often. We like consensus. Consensus is good. No consensus is bad. We do not like no consensus. No consensus says "we need to talk about this some more, just not right now". That's why we ordinarily follow-up a no consensus close with a good faith review, and renominate if the consensus is still not clear. This AfD proves that this was a good decision, and this AfD has been beneficial, and good, like the consensus it is attempting to seek. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's the son of Al Gore and that is basically it. Notability is not inherited. Also, being caught with drugs does not make you notable either. I agree with the above delete votes. Undeath (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a felon does not grant notability - neither is notability inherited, this is the stuff of yellow press. EJF (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think deletion on the basis of failure of individual notability criteria misses the bigger picture. It's not that he's the son of somebody famous that makes him notable, nor is it that he has been repeatedly arrested for drug and traffic violations. I agree that neither of these things alone is sufficient for notability. It's that he's the son of a politician who has been repeatedly arrested for drug and traffic violations and made press in all of the major mainstream media for it. Taken collectively, it's impossible to avert one's eyes from the figure's notability, as sensational as it may be. (Scott Peterson was not notable on merits, either, but media focus on the investigation of his wife's disappearance and his subsequent murder trial grants him notability.) Robert K S (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no argument whatsoever about "merits" as you seem to be defining it, but rather attention. And Scott Peterson got a LOT of it -- heavy, sustained, and ludicrously detailed -- with (sadly) a high level of public interest. Here? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Al Bores main article if his only notable achievement is the speech. Otherwise keep, as more pithy articles about more nameless people are kept all the time.Brinlong (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited; no other info is encyclopedic — Bellhalla (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weak to non-existent claim to notability. Maybe someday he'll become Vice President of the United States, win a Nobel Prize, or even more, but now, not even close. If someone wants a coatrack, they can go down to IKEA and buy one. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Media attention indicates notability. Wikipedians may believe that notability shouldn't be inherited but in some cases, for better or worse, it is. Merger to Al Gore would be clutter there. Although this article should be kept, the sprained ankle should be edited out. JamesMLane t c 14:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual and substantial media attention, yes. This? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Has been repeatedly in the press unfortunately and past consensus has been to keep and there is no substantial new reason to rethink it. James' comment above that "Wikipedians may believe that notability shouldn't be inherited but in some cases, for better or worse, it is" may be relevant- if the media pays attention to something that can make it notable even if we would rather something not be notable. Note that this case is distinct from the recent case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Nicholas Hilton‎ since Al Gore III has been in the news on multiple occasions. I'm also a bit annoyed at the repeated attempts to delete this article despite the prior consensus to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query The nomination's principle claim is that this is a coatrack. I have no partisan interest in this matter so may be missing something. What are the coats? Please provide an example. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. The term coatrack is a neologism for an article that uses the notability criteria to establish a precedent for being kept, but then expresses unencyclopedic, non-notable information about the subject that would otherwise not be includable. So, I am sure that you would agree that not every (or even many) people who get arrested for drunk driving and have the charges dismissed as part of an agreement to attend some alcohol counseling would warrant an article in wikipedia. But this person's such experience has been included. Why? Because we think people who get a DWI then accept counseling should have this published? No, because we want to discredit the person, or in this case, his father. Or perhaps we just think it is sensational when these things happen to the relatives of famous people. This individual is not a willing public figure... he's no Paris Hilton, no Britney Spears. He can't escape all of his misadventures being covered in tabloids and other media, because his father is famous. His father is not famous because of him, and he is not famous because of his drinking, drug use, or broken ankle. But we have made an article about his drinking, drug use and broken ankle. Why, because his father is famous. We have absolutely zero encyclopedic information in this article about him. It is a coatrack, and every drug use coat, arrest coat, broken bone coat, breakup with a girlfriend coat, etc will get hung here. If there was an article in the Washington Post about canine heart disease and it said this is not a problem only with poor people's dogs, but even rich people have dogs with heart disease, and it said "Anna Kornikova's Bonsai Doberman-Pinscher, Genie, is a good example of that."^[1] Would you expect to write the Genie (dog) article and put down every time the dog pees on the carpet or shits in public? This article is exactly that. Al Gore III has pissed on his share of carpets and shit on enough lawns that we could write about it, but in the end he is just some famous person's dog. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, have no desire to discredit Al Gore III or his father, but feel obliged to include in an article about a notable individual the events for which he was noted. I don't understand the need for toilet metaphors when making a point in an AfD discussion. Robert K S (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet metaphors were not used for shock value, not to demean the position of any other editor's comment. It is a simplified example used to separate the specific subject from my argument, and I think most people who read it can do so without vomiting. Sorry if you are not in that "such people" category. I don't tiptoe on eggshells. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you describe it, your concern doesn't seem to be WP:COAT but WP:NPF. There aren't any coats (tangential topics) - it's more a privacy issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually very closely related, and niether is acceptable, so perhaps it is not so important to purely classify it for the purposes of this AfD. The coatrack essay says this: "Coatrack articles can be born... accidentally through unintended excessive focus on some part of the nominal subject. Coatrack articles violate the core Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, this is a very serious problem that requires drastic measures. It may all be true and it may all be sourced, but if a biography of a living person is a negatively-balanced coatrack, this is unacceptable." I think that truly applies here. Where is the positive information? Why are we making this guy out to be a real loser druggy miscreant nuiance to society? Perhaps to discredit Al Gore, and by extension to discredit that for which he stands? Perhaps. But it is more likely a good faith effort to make an article, that unfortunately does not have any balancing content, because the subject is inherantly non-notable, and the only coverage he gets is negative, because that's what is sensational. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this person's sister Karenna Gore Schiff. She seems no more notable and yet is attracting no AFDs. The excessive attempts to remove only the negative aspects of the Gore family coverage does not indicate NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you asked me to consider Karenna Gore Schiff. She is an author with a published book on 9 historical women. Her book has received wide coverage in a neutral critical way.^[2] She has expressed her political views publicly, and they have been the object of controversy. She was responsible for bringing controversial feminist author Naomi Wolf into her father's campaign, causing him a flurry of embarrassment. She personally spoke at the democratic national convention,^[3] and was one of two people who personally nominated her father for president at it. She was the head of Gorenet, and as such, received multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources. Her father's campaign employed her as the official liasion to generation-x, and this was mentioned numerous times during the campaign. There has been wide speculation that she may enter politics herself.^[4] She also has written articles for Newsweek, Glamour, Cosmopolitan, and Harper's Bazaar. Bookreporter.com interviewed her. ^[5] She has been a paid public speaker.^[6] ^[7] Her own policital views have been analyzed in a context separate from her father's office or candidacy.^[8] Her 2-page article in Glamour has caused turmoil among people her age.^[9] She was interviewed for a half hour segnent of Larry King Live^[10]. So I guess I am disinclined to acquiesce to your suggestion that this person is non-notable, and therefore represents a wikipedia conspiracy that you suggest I am a major proponent of, to rid Wikipedia of non Gore-friendly content and to promote Gore-cruft. I'd say your point is baseless. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my point. I do not say that she is not notable - I think that she is. My point is that her notability is comparable in scale with that of Al Gore III. In both cases, this notability springs from their association with the Gore dynasty and their father in particular. In such dynasties, notability is inherited and the point is generally acknowledged in the case of royalty. In the USA, the equivalent of royalty is such dynasties as the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Gores. The black sheep of these families are objects of public interest and it is quite reasonable that we should cover them for this reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karenna Gore Schiff's notability is based on her authorship of a book and other works, not on the bare fact of her parentage. Your naked assertion to the contrary has no force. The claim that wikipedia should cover black sheep simply because they are blacksheep is likewise without referable to wikipedia policy. In addition, to assert that Gore III's errors are notable simply because they are errors is circular. rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The delete argument always goes around in circles: he's non-notable because the article contains negative content because he's non-notable. The keep argument is straightforward: this individual is notable (i.e., he has been noted) because he has attracted attention as the trouble-prone son of a notable person. The present version of the article doesn't even list his whole record, omitting arrests in 2002 and 2000 that resulted only in citations. These events are usually reported in news articles about Gore, e.g. [49] Robert K S (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is not circular logic. It is quite linear. The information in the sources provided describe events and attributes of this person which happen to millions of people (please understand that I am saying that newspaper articles are written about a lot of people who are charged with crimes like DUI and drug possession.) And these millions of people are not written about in wikipedia. Why? Because the information is not the kind of information that defines their notability. It does not matter that we can verify it... heck, it is all true. Being true and being verifiable are not the problem. The problem is that they are not details we commonly write about a person. If we had valid reasons other than this material to have this person's article here, then we would probably be remiss to not include this information. But absent any valid reason to have this person here, we just have a smear article. It is by no means balanced. The events we cover are probably a sum total of 1000 minutes of this person's life. They are the only 1000 minutes we know anything about, because he is non-notable. So, of the 2.5 Million minutes of this person's awaken adult life, we are taking 1000 of them and effectively saying "this is what this guy is about". Or more eloquently, we are saying he is the "trouble-prone son of a notable person", based on 0.04% of his actual life. That is substantially imbalanced. Whether some other Gore articles need to be deleted or not, I do not know; I did not look at any. Might be a good idea to actually do that. We'll see, after this article is deleted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of people don't have their busts run on the AP wire. The arguments you're making have been made 7 times before, and each time in the past not enough editors have bought into them. Robert K S (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Thank-you! They have been made 7 times before because they were right. And change, she is a beautiful thing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting logic. Not only were the arguments made 7 times before, they failed 7 times before. If an article is deleted, it usually does not come back later for people to discuss whether the consensus has "changed", because there is nothing to discuss. If it is kept, of course, then it can be renominated seven times or more until someone gets a "beautiful" result. I think we all know that the AfD process doesn't work both ways. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that is a naive statement. Deleted articles are only salted in unusual circumstances. Normally anybody can create a new article where one was previously deleted without any controversy, as long as it meets the basic criteria for inclusion (WP:N, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV). Editors who do not want to create the new article themselves can also go to AfC and request help writing it. If they feel that there is valid reason to just undelete the article that used to exist without recreating it, they can put in a request to have it restored or userfied at DRV. And if the new article still does not meet the inclusion criteria, there are always other alternatives.

Let's not mischaracterize the last AfD. It was closed as "no consensus". It is standard, normal, usual, and customary for such closures to result in renomination approximately six months later.

"Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." (- WP:CCC)JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just crossed the line with that remark, Jerry. How dare you accuse me or anyone else on here of being "naive". I think you've insulted enough people that you need a more official reminder of what it means to be civil. Mandsford (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we come from different parts of the English-speaking world, and our understanding of the term "naive", and its social implications, might be different. First of all I did not say that you were naive. I said that the statement you made was naive. There is a big difference between those two phrases. In the former, I would have been making a personal remark about you and your experience. In the latter (the one I did actually say) I was referring only to the statement that you made. Even a highly sophistocated, experienced and intelligent person can make an intentionally-naive statement for a variety of reasons. In the sense that I used it, naive means "deficient in informed judgment", and refers to the fact that your statement appeared to neglect all of the options available to editors who wish to create an article after one has been deleted. I elucidated these options in my statement. You were referring to the deletion process as being one-sided, and implied that keep closures were temporary and delete closures were permanent. I thought that the statement you made was in that way, naive. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Al Gore. Al Gore III is not, despite what many people here seem to believe, notable in his own right, and notability is not inherited. All we can say about him is that he once had a serious car accident; he's been mentioned in his father's speeches a few times; and he's had some relatively minor convictions relating to drugs possession. None of that is sufficient grounds for an article on this person; WP:BLP demands that we balance the very marginal notability of the subject against their privacy and the damage an article can do, and in this case I believe that should clearly point us towards deletion. Terraxos (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If my dad was important and I got a traffic conviction I certainly wouldn't expect a Wikipedia article for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I came in here to say that... :P Delete per WP:COATRACK and nom. seicer | talk | contribs 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terraxos sums it up very well. Mr.Z-man 23:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though we might want to consider renaming to Al Gore III scandals and controversies to more closely reflect the content of the article. It currently meets WP:V and WP:NOR; I think it also meets WP:NPOV because it reflects what has been written in reliable sources. It's not our job to say that the sources shouldn't be covering this person. If we were citing tabloids, that would be a problem, but we're citing reliable news sources. As an aside, I think that JERRY's comment that Gore III is "just some famous person's dog" is a much more serious violation of WP:BLP than anything in the article itself could be. *** Crotalus *** 00:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NOTE & above arguments. Seriously guys, no consensus to delete after 8 tries?!? Do you think everyone is going to change their mind all of a sudden? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect editors to change their minds from time to time, certainly. Why not? rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on any of the previous ones (that I can recall), its not a matter of changing everyone's mind. We have thousands of active editors, only 5-20 participate in an average AFD debate. Mr.Z-man 08:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATTACK. Seems like the only reason the article exists is to defame him. I'm not proud of what he has done, but if hes done nothing else, we can't have a one-topic biography. MrPrada (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only notable thing he has done is get a Prius up to 100 mph. That definitely merits mention at Prius. rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cumulus Clouds. Will ^(talk) 12:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments in like four or five other nominations of this article. Gore III is not, in and of himself, notable. He has only attracted media attention as a result of his birth. Can you imagine what this place would look like if we had an article for every kid who smoked pot and got a ticket? The trend toward having (mildly defamatory) articles on the non-notable children of notable politicians is something that needs to change. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the arguments articulated in this thread also came up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr. (third nomination), which ended up being deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That example is a good illustration of why redirection to Al Gore is not a good idea. The Jeb Bush, Jr. article apparently still exists (blue link) and if you click on it, you then go to an article called Jeb Bush. At first sight, this might be the person in question, and you need to remember to double-check who's who to sort out which generation the article and name refers to. Since there are apparently at least three Al Gores, it's even worse in that case. Please remember that the articles are to be read by people who don't know all this background to start with. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is a problem. I updated the wikilink for the redirect at Jeb Bush, Jr., so it now redirects directly to the section that discusses him ("Family") in the father's article Jeb Bush#Family. We might want to put a hatnote on the article as well. EG: "Jeb Bush, Jr. redirects here; information about that person can be found in the "family" section of this article."Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

^ celebripets.com
^ Washington Post
^ cnn
^ USA Weekend
^ Bookreporter.com
^ Boston Public Library
^ Columbia University Website
^ Salon.com
^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23567 WorldNet Daily]
^ CNN

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snatam Kaur

[1] ripets.com

[2] Washington Post

[3] ^ cnn

[4] USA Weekend

[5] Bookreporter.com

[6] Boston Public Library

[7] Columbia University Website

[8] Salon.com

[9] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23567 WorldNet Daily]

[10] CNN

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]