Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Star Mississippi (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 26 February 2008 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Falangist Party of America. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 25 February 27 >

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 keep —αlεx•mullεr 12:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Falangist Party of America

Christian Falangist Party of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's been some discussion already as to its notability, but there doesn't appear to actually be any. Two trivial RS hits. The vast majority is an unsourced copyvio. Removing that eliminates the article essentially as ghits don't demonstrate any notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:16, 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 —αlεx•mullεr 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unniceness

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

Disputed prod (a few times) - procedural listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's essentially identical:
Unnice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This word was invented by a troll in Yahoo Answers who goes under over a dozen names. He asks questions constantly that try to put "normal" people in a bad light. He also created the entry in the urban dictionary. He has referred to both asking for people's opinions of them. Both are written in the same writing-style as his Yahoo Answers questions. (For confirmation of this do a search on Yahoo Answers on the word "unnice" and you will find that PeteandCl, Pastasauce88, Cheesecakefries, Bostongreenleaf, Sucker, Chilidogsteak, lemonaidjuiceii, jigganyc, royalsweethights, noreagared, cherrysodalime, No pity, Magixstick, N, and others all write very similar questions citing "normal" people as "unnice".)

I think the person who created the word has a mental health issue. No self-respecting person with a disability would use it. No self-respecting person with a disability would refer to people without disabilities as "normal". This "unword" needs to be removed in its entirety. I have edited the entry at least 5 times only to have my edits removed. Xuxan Xuxan (talk) 00:50, 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 Closed by a non-admin. ~ Dreamy § 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion theory

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

Unsourced since June of 2006. I tried to add some references but the only Google hits that turn up refer to Aryan invasion theory, or trivial passing references to invasionism. Most likely impossible to assert its importance and notability. Hazillow (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google scholar search returns many useful hits. The article claims that the theory has fallen out of fashion, and that it did so in the 1960s. Thus there's unlikely to be much online refs for it. It's not a horrid article. Could it be tagged for some project (history? archaeology?) for a few weeks to see if someone can clean it up a bit. I know it's had the unsourced link on it for some time. this source seems useful?? Dan Beale-Cocks 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the very term "invasion theory" itself is vague and undefined, as is the article. The fact is that there is no scholarly theory such as this, except perhaps in the article author's own head. It's not worth keeping. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:49, 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. Fram (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE and Maoist Relations

AfDs for this article:
LTTE and Maoist Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This AfD is a relist of the previous AfD on this matter due to the influence of a sockfarm. Soman's nomination rationale was that the article is merely an essay copypasta'd from various news sources. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as that's exactly what the article appears to be. so that's where all my missing socks are, and all this time I was blaming the dryer! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dgf32 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No RS given and has not been covered by major news sources that are respected. This is just another propaganda in the long running Sri Lankan Civil War. Closer look at the citations can assert that the citation used are once that have not been ever used on wikipedia and seems more like attack sites and random blogs rather than RS. Furthermore one RS citation is the US embassy but that citation does not even call any links between the two rebel groups. The other, Rediff, merely claims that the Moist claimed that they were Trained by the LTTE but this claim says it was decade ago and was assisted by "On the run" LTTE cadres. This is mere accusation and creating an article from accusations is not what we do in wikipedia. Other sources given are either citation of Sri Lankan Government and their associates like Asian Tribune. Writing an article from accusation of one of the warring party is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. Watchdogb (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomTaprobanus (talk) 22:49, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Rechcigl

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

The article has no claim of notability and does not satisfy WP:NOT. It also appears to be a COI as the creator of this article also created pages on her husband, father-in-law, and grandfather-in-law (although this is not the main reason for nominating this page). Furthermore, it may be useful to check out the AFD for the article subject's husband, the result of which was Delete. BWH76 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reads like a resume or CV. No claim of notability. Unencyclopedic material. Dgf32 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A google search does turn up items that point to potential notability. There are some publications to this person's name, in the specialized field of ornamental plant care, while other potential references seem to point toward some level of prestige within that narrow field. I didn't dig into it further than that. If references pan out, the article may be salvagable, but it would need significant work to bring it beyond the vanity bio/resume that it now appears to be. As it stands, weak delete. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:21, 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 for lack of reliable, independent sources, as indicated by those preferring to delete the article, and not shown to be incorrect by the others. Fram (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CigarettesPedia

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

No RS coverage, an Alex rank of 368,798 and ghits that don't assert notability. Appears to fail WP:WEB. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give some explanations about the notability of CigarettesPedia. It contains images of cigarettes packs and articles regarding tobacco products and manufacturers. One can trace the history and evolution of any cigarette pack. The project does not promote smoking or smoking cessation. The resource itself is neutral.

About the ghits that don't assert notability, I suppose that this only shows that the supporters of the website did their job to increase traffic. I suppose that it deserves an article on WikiPedia. It is a quite young resource, but it has no analogies.

For example the article about Altria group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria and its Alex rank of 416,743. How this thing is connected or influences the notability of the article about the Altria in Wikipedia? I understand that it is up to you to decide to leave or to delete the article but taking into consideration that the resource is new may be you’ll kindly give it a little of support? As I mentioned before, the whole resource is neutral. I really do not know, but may be more neutral penmanship in the article? If you have any suggestions on how to improve the article- I am all ears, your assistance will be appreciated. Thank you for your time.--Arolga (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Arolga I realise you worked very hard to create this article, but just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should. There's nothing to establish notability because there have been no reliable sources covering the site, its significance, etc. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for websites and this site doesn't appear to meet them, so it's not so much a question of re-writing. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear TRAVELLINGCARI, thank you for detailed explanation. Possible, this resource will be more notable for Wikipedia. Wish you luck in your hard work. --Arolga (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arolga (talk • contribs) 09:34, 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 delete —αlεx•mullεr 12:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EVS Broadcast Equipment

EVS Broadcast Equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:CORP, WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:56, 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, — Scientizzle 16:39, 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 Not notable, with no sources for the claims made. --Stephen 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teefr

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

There are some ghits but no evidence of any RS coverage. The Dinosaur Interplanetary Gazette is owned by the author, so it's not independent. If there was a reliable source to confirm the claim it was "among the first novels ever published online in English" then it *might* be notable, but I doubt that. I've bundled the nn teddybear in this series

Theadore Rosebear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Travellingcari (talk) 17:49, 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, — Scientizzle 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly, this pretty much hinges on the claim of being "among the first novels ever published online in English", which I find a little hard to imagine. By late 1996 the internet was already pretty mainstream, and ebook publishers like Boson, Hard Shell, and Online Originals were gearing up. The LA Times recently wrote that "the Internet boomed with hundreds of amateur "hypertext novels" almost as early as the birth of the medium", and our own Hypertext fiction article supports this, with examples of online novels from 1987, and the first web novel from 1994. Of course, the Teefr article doesn't say it was the first, but was it truly among the first? That claim is fishy ay best, and at the very least not supported by any reliable sources that I could find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Asserts no notability for novel itself. Claim of being an early novel published online would not make it notable even if it was verifiable. Dgf32 (talk) 18:25, 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 Non-notable --Stephen 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian K. Clark

Ian K. Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As a composer or musician, he doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC as the only non-forum/download/mySpace site is this alumni mag which may or may not be the same person. Removing the middle initial creates a lot of false positives and still no RS coverage. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:30, 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 redirect to Doyle (guitarist) pending the establishment of independent notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous Frankenstein

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

This was a speedy G4 declined by Sasquatch - article was previously deleted in a previous AfD. Article fails WP:N: the only importance of the band is that one member was in another band once. That band member also has his own article anyway. Article fails WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V - no independent sources given for article, only 2 sources were the band's "official page", and a MySpace page which I deleted.. Also see WP:SPAM.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources given to establish notability --Stephen 09:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Drinkwater

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

Not really a Speedy candidate as there are some assertions of importance. Though I doubt they meet notability guidelines or academic guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working to enhance the article over the weekend. 80.42.205.167 (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't need enhancement. Just verifiable sources that assert subject meets WP:N. Verifiability and notability are basic requirements for an article. Where did you get this information? Can you please cite the source(s). It should not take "weeks" to tell what sources were used in creating this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 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. Maxim(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click MusicalKEYS

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

I see one trivial review ( I read Spanish so the language isn't an issue) and once you filter out download locations, ghits don't assert any notability for this software. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:18, 26 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 12:31, 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. Fram (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie's Playground

Frankie's Playground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

connections to notable musicians are only supported by biased external links; list of labels is really a list of artists; thisd article seems more bent on promotion than establishing notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:13, 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 —αlεx•mullεr 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and organizations that list the PKK as a terrorist group

List of countries and organizations that list the PKK as a terrorist group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Such a controversial issue should be referenced. This probably has links only for USA and Turkey. TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) If properly cited, however, article could better be merged into something, PKK for example.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to vote on this either way, but I'd just like to point out that the EU listing the PKK as a terrorist group is not the same as the individual nation states listing it as a terrorist group - they are, after all, separate entities. To be honest, I think this would be better off as being added to the PKK article in prose form rather than as a list. Supersheep (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Supersheep, European Union's structure causes that, if EU signs a treaty, it is the same as each nation has signed it. EU's current structure has some resemblance to US, when US federal government signs a treaty, all the individual states should employ it.Khutuck (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treaty /= declaring a body a terrorist organisation. The EU and the US are not really comparable. Supersheep (talk) 02:22, 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. Wizardman 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clubs' Next Top Model

AfDs for this article:
Clubs' Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think it exists, but it appears to fail WP:WEB as I don't see evidence of notability in any language. Creator is an SPA with an obvious COI TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:02, 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. This is recreation of deleted material, specifically Lee Gooden, and as such, still does not prove notabilility through independent, reliable sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Adam Gooden

Lee Adam Gooden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. The assertion of notability rests on five articles published in the Post Star (Glen Falls, New York): Two focus on local amateur theatre (Gooden's name is mentioned), one concerns a workshop production of his play "Quaternity", and the remaining two deal with a poetry festival which was founded by a colleague (Gooden's name does not feature). Amateur theatre aside, his literary output appears to be limited to non-paying websites. He is the recipient of the "Parnassus Award for Poetry", the web presence of which is limited to this article and Gooden's blog. Apparently a recreation and expansion of an earlier article, Lee gooden [sic], which had been the subject of a speedy deletion. Both were created by the same single purpose account. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:N. Local newspapers generally aren't reliable sources, especially when that's all an article has, so fails WP:RS too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Local newspapers are reliable sources. Like national ones, they realize their credibility is their most important asset. Their news judgments reflect their audience, so their coverage of local events, organizations and people is likely to be more comprehensive than of coverage of what happens elsewhere. --Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really want to enter into the discussion on whether or not local newspapers can be considered reliable sources. My reason for writing about the Post Star articles included as references has to do, again, with WP:BIO. In short, there is no sign, even within the local press, that Gooden "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Indeed, his name does not even appear in two of the five references provided. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:22, 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 Keep, nom withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Rosenthal

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

The article contradicts itself, stating first that the subject invented the marker pen, then quotes the US patent office which says someone else did. Reference for the first claim is answers.com. Without a better ref, this has to be a delete. Note that the same info is repeated on Marker pen. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC) This now appears to be better sourced, nomination withdrawn. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as this Newsday article appears to back up the claim. I'm going to add it. I can't imagine a better source, however than answers.com ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 16:06, 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 delete —αlεx•mullεr 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Traffik (album)

Stop the Traffik (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with very little media coverage; fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. Can be re-created if and when album is released or garners significant media attention. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:42, 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 except signature updates.

The result was keep; ample coverage by reliable sources is demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Islam Summit

Secular Islam Summit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated for {{prod}}. Although the tag had been in place for five days, it was removed before the article could be deleted.

I'm not convinced this article can ever meet Wikipedia standards. Most importantly, it fails verification. There were no references at all on Google Books or JSTOR. The first couple pages on regular Google search were all blogs and other unreliable sources. This deletion rationale was described as "nonsense" by User:Bwalker5435, but we delete articles for nonexistent verification all the time. *** Crotalus *** 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you check to see if the two sources cited were real? If they are, then this is a keep. Hazillow (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked the "external links" section and this is definitely real and has been reported by notable news sources. Speedy keep. Hazillow (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a small number of passing references in newspapers and newsmagazines. That might qualify for a mention on Wikinews, but not on Wikipedia. I just don't see how this meeting has had any real long-term impact, or else it would have been mentioned by some scholarly source somewhere. One concern I have is that Wikipedia's lengthy coverage of this minor conference violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. *** Crotalus *** 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would this violate NPOV? This is a factual article about a factual event. There is no POV. And how is this coverage "lengthy?" And you can spin tons of things as "passing references." The summit was notable; please check this. Fifteen hits. Is this a "passing reference?"

"In St. Petersburg, the Secular Islam Summit, sponsored by a humanist organization called the Center for Inquiry, featured Muslim speakers who ranged from angry ex-believers to devout reformers. They differed sharply on particulars, but all shared the conviction that Islam must be compatible with secular democracy. Their closing manifesto, "The St. Petersburg Declaration," affirmed the separation of mosque and state, gender equality in personal and family law, and unrestricted critical study of Islamic traditions."

Also, many of the speakers at the summit are notable individuals, for what it is worth. Keep. Hazillow (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This did happen, and it is useful and relevant information. I don't see why it should go Jpineda84 (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bailey (singer)

Derek Bailey (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The Escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
D.C. Burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hoax article. No verifiable references show a singer named Derek Bailey (not to be confused with the well-known guitarist) having any success whatsoever. Google likewise turns up nothing about Dr. Dre working with anyone by that name. His website at derek-bailey.com is a joke. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. Also adding two album articles. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:32, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supavadee Phangkaew

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

No claim of notability in article. 0 non-wiki ghits; external links in article don't mention this person. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently in the process of adding to this article. Please refrain from simply deleting at this stage. Thanks 84.64.255.190 (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some verifiable sources asserting subject meeting notability is what we need. Will happily reconsider my position if can be shown to meet WP:V and WP:N. Cheers, and happy editing! Dlohcierekim 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I do not totally exlucde the possibility of deletion. Just check the article's history; the user is taking his time to edit the article, so I persuade that we all give him more time to expand, but again with a limit, preferably up to one to two months more. I recommend that we call the creator (check the page history) and notify him of this first. Mr Tan (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give more time Finding references may be more difficult in this case, since the majority of source material can be expected to be in the Thai language. The creater and other contributors should be given ample time with these difficulties in mind. Thanks and happy editing Demathis (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First edit. Dlohcierekim 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no reliable sources in the article at this time to verify notability. If the creator manages to produce such and wishes to expand this article, even if this AfD closes as delete, it can be userfied on request at deletion review. After sufficient sourcing is introduced to verify notability, the article could be restored to article space without concern about recreation. (Of course, if it was reintroduced without sufficient sourcing, it would be subject to speedy deletion.) In it's current state, it doesn't qualify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 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. Fram (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candiss Casto-McGlynn

Candiss Casto-McGlynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish notability and does not provide sources to support any claims to notability (no awards, external articles, press coverage, etc.) Ozgod (talk) 15:09, 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. The article on the album "Ai no Uta" by the band Strawberry Flower does not verify notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ai no Uta (Album)

Ai no Uta (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with no references and little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:06, 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 speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiel Mit Feuer

Spiel Mit Feuer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, article about a school Dodgeball team Jeepday (talk) 15:03, 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. -- Longhair\talk 01:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Catterns

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

Article does not establish and does not provide references or citations to support notability. Ozgod (talk) 15:01, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Re-creation of article formerly deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burke and Hare (musical) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burke and Hare: The Musical

Burke and Hare: The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable play performed at high school; lacked speedy cat., prod removed without discussion - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] DON'T DELETE!!!!! Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't Wikipedia a website that allows people to find out information about certain subjects? It's just that alot of people who would like to find out about Burke and Hare: The Musical have gone onto the previous Burke and Hare: The Musical wikipedia page and read up on it. So why is the article getting deleted? It's a genuine article about a genuine musical, if you need proof then I can show you photos, links to newspapers that previewd it, the offical Burke and Hare; The Musical web page, What more do you want! —Preceding unsigned comment added by


Lochaber High School I have you know that Lochaber High School DID perform Burke and Hare: The Musical it even says so on Lochaber High School the wikipedia article, follow this link and see...http://www.lochaber-news.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/1620/Show_hits_a_gruesome_note....html please allow the article to exist, i beg you! 212.219.203.157 (talk) 15:05, 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 Speedy delete - nonsense/hoax. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Brahmana Kusuma Firmansyah

Aditya Brahmana Kusuma Firmansyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is actually about a different person altogether, David R. Cheriton. A quick check of all the links reveals that all the info credited to Mr. Aditya are in fact those referring to Mr. David. The article includes even a picture of Mr. David R. Cheriton. Weltanschaunng 14:43, 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether he meets notability criteria. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Chasse

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

fails musician notability criteria - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep - I'm really surprised at the comments made after the article was in its current state. This guy has an article about him in the SF Weekly, an article on Piero Scaruffi's site, was a member of several notable bands (many of whom, granted, don't have articles yet but easily satisfy WP:MUSIC on their own; he and his work are covered on All Music in those articles: 1 2 3 4 - those are just the articles and reviews that list Chasse by name; the Thuja article has several reviewed albums as well. Pitchfork Media has also reviewed albums from Chasse's bands (1 2), and even mentions Chasse in relation to Jeweled Antler even for albums he didn't personally play in (1 2). All this AND the essay was AfD'd fifteen minutes after creation while an established editor was still working on it - where was the assumption of good faith? The SF Weekly article was already linked when it was nominated. —Torc. (Talk.) 04:41, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baphomets Throne

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

Appears not to meet any of the critera listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music) eg. hits on a national music chart, albums released on a major label, major music awards, regularly played on major radio networks or certified gold sales and the official website [2] has no information that the band meet these criteria. Previsously deleted in December 2007. Speedy deleted from es:, nl:, no:, sl:, sv: and da:. Thuresson (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakest conceivable keep. The article currently says that Rob Darken of Graveland was in the band at one point, which would make it pass criterion 6 of the criteria cited. That said, those criteria also point out that a redirect is often a better result here, and that may be the best result in this case too. I'm also having a bit of trouble verifying that Darken actually was in the band, although that may be due to my lack of Polish rather than anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no information on the webpage supporting that Rob Darken ever was a member of the band. Various websites suggests that Rob Darken held a different capacity, such as playing keyboard at recording sessions. Thuresson (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duly noted. Encyclopedia Metallum lists a couple of other members as being in various other bands, and I'm still trying to track down the notability of those bands. If I don't before the AfD ends, then I won't object if the article is deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:24, 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 keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Levin

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

Non-notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. Created by user who has created a long list of such articles sourced to partisan sources, see WP:BLP/N#American academics. Contested prod. Relata refero (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree. His early book on Freud is cited by scholars

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&rls=WZPA,WZPA:2005-50,WZPA:en&q=%22kenneth+levin%22+freud&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

http://www.jstor.org/search/BasicSearch?si=1&hp=25&Search=Search&gw=jtx&Query=%22levin%2C+kenneth%22++freud&wc=on

Mere citation doesn't make someone notable, nor does being quoted by FPM. Relata refero (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved comment from talk page: discuss here please.
    • Please back and take another look at the article.
      But Levin is being discussed by serious journalists. The Jerusalem Post and the New York Sun are to the right of center, but they are respected for high journalistic standards. Heis ideas are also being discussed by by authors writing books on Israeli society.
      But on this quesiton of notability. A guy writes a book that is published by a respectable press and widely reviewed. (this one is also widely discussed, but even supposing it wasas not discussed in the press, just reviewed)
      Why not have an article on him. poeople will want to know who he is.
      And we have infinite space. We really can agree to put up interesting figures who may not be world famous. In fact, I think that this is the great opportunity Wiki phas. After all, if I want to know about, say, Francis Fukuyama - easy as pie. But Kenneth Levin - where else cna you go to find out what degrees he has, what his early books were, etc.
      Please don't be so eager to delete. American Clio (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) American Clio[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I looked through the sources, and I don't think there's enough there to pass WP:RS. The coverage from the Jerusalem Post and New York Sun is trivial; the only significant coverage is from Frontpage Magazine, and I'm not sure that it qualifies as a reliable source. Articles written by Levin aren't sufficient to demonstrate notability: that requires articles about him, and I just don't think this article has enough of them to show that he is notable. Terraxos (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is he the subject of articles? (Thanks for the Andrea Levin tidbit, by the way.)Relata refero (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His blog carries reviews from the New York Post, The Washington Times, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon. See also Commentary, Jewish Political Studies Review and Outpost (right-wing Zionist monthly). And this news report for his role in a highly controversial CAMERA conference. Hecht (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe This fellow is right on the cusp of notability. Certainly when his book came out three years back, he was all over the Jewish press. It's not clear that he has staying power, however, as I don't see much in the way of references outside that community. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 4 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!☺ 05:02, 4 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 Keep per improvements (sources) to the article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Renfroe

Anita Renfroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable internet phenomenon, minimal secondary sources, fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Relata refero (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, apparently's been hired by GMA as a "special contributor". May put her over the margin for notability. The one youtube videos and a few concerts didn't do it for me, but this might. More sources being searched for. Relata refero (talk) 15:28, 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 --Stephen 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Arenson

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

Contested prod. Non-notable journalist, coverage related only to one event, and so ruled out per WP:BLP1E. That other event already covered in the appropriate article. Relata refero (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What other article? I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a link to Joseph Massad in there, who was the central figure in that internal investigation. Criticism of a particular NY Times article was a very minor little aspect of a relatively non-encylopaedic controversy. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there wasn't. I've added a link and done some other clean up. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep a notable reporter and a notable scandal. If anything, this is material that cannot be reasonably included in the Massad article and should therefore be kept separately. I'm getting a bit tired of the use of BLP1E to argue for very general deletions when BLP1E specifically talks about things like "unimportant criminals" not reporters for the New York Times(which lets not forget is the newspaper of record in the United States) who have been the subject of controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rot. If you think the scandal is notable, start an article on it. The so-called references here mention the Times article only in passing, and in neither case talk about the individual reporter in detail - as well they shouldn't, because the error in question reflects on the editorial team as much if not more. (In fact the Sun specifically says "between the two institutions".)
And BLP1E says "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election.." What part of "such as" gives you trouble? Relata refero (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the examples given are much less notability. "relatively unimportant crime" is something like a random thief. That's much less notable than an NYT reporter. And Areson has name has been in the neews in other contexts as well other than just this controversy. See this for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? This random reporter is much more notable than that guy in Australia? Please. In any case, this is a straightforward application of policy as written. If you have a problem with the policy, there are other places to argue that.
And if your best example of another story is "random journalist who happened to be quoted as one of thousands who happen to have donated money to political campaigns", it doesn't help much. Relata refero (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that article isn't probably the most persuasive evidence for that particularly claim. I'll spend more time later looking for additional sources of that form. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for some reason I've been quite snappy in this whole discussion.... sorry about that. Relata refero (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Seemed fine to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have been the subject of external criticism making her sufficiently notable. As this directly relates to her professional capacity, it is not BLP1E, it is her career. This is far different from being, say, an interview subject or other incidental relation to a single event. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, firstly, is that interpretation actually in BLP1E? Relata refero (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, but it is a highly reasonable interpretation of the logic behind BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was derived from the closely related WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep and help - the problem with this page is that it is difficult to find info on her not because its not out there - it almost certianly is - but because she has an ordinary name. I tried, for example googling "karen arenson" "new York Times" award - to see what journalism prizes she has won. likely she has won some. Problem is, myriad articles pop up that she has written about somebody or other who ha won an award.
I suspect that if we leave this up for a while, somebody who knows more aobut her will know the good key words to google to find articles that discuss her work in a positibe way.
In fact, in general, when an article seems biased, the best fix may be to leave it up unitil somebody who admires the subject can type in better info. American Clio (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC) American Clio[reply]
Again, explain how this is inappropriate. Policy is clearly written to include such cases, why do you want to make an exception? Relata refero (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's a journalist! Of course she's occasionally cited. If that's your concern, then she fails WP:PROF as well. Relata refero (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In heaven's name, how? Where has she been the subject of at least two independent stories in reliable sources about her? Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable person, fails WP:RS. She has not been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources; out of the references provided, the only one that could plausibly be called 'significant coverage' is a blog, which flatly fails WP:RS. The rest are either articles written by her, or brief mentions of her in articles about something else (i.e. the New York Times-Columbia University controversy). It's pretty clear from the sources that it's that controversy which is notable, not Arenson herself. Indeed, this article is basically a coatrack, which uses Arenson as an excuse to talk about the Columbia University controversy. Terraxos (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. The subject is a notable New York Times reporter and I would expect that interested parties would want to turn to Wikipedia to learn more about her. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:11, 2 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. Fram (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Wave

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

Non-notable school newsletter. Contested prod. Insufficient notable, reliable, secondary sources. Relata refero (talk) 13:00, 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 Closed as moot. Article has already been deleted by User:Orangemike. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Whistle Man

Tin Whistle Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Few google hits for exact term, none relating to the subject of this article. Think outside the box 12:53, 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. Arguments by keeper(s?) are not convincing, sources mostly don't even mention Justin Wells. Fram (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Wells

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

Article about television person of questioned notability and without sources; was proposed for deletion but has already been deleted once per prod, so it should be discussed here. Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing in the article suggests notability. Lacks verifiability as well. Dgf32 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete A local news producer does not merit a page on Wikipedia. Producers sit in the control room and witness notable events daily. Their mere presence is not encyclopedic. Now if we're talking the producer of a nationally-recognized newscast who has earned major awards and accolades, they may merit inclusion. Plus, this was deleted once before. Burghboy80 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO and seems like it is probably a conflict of interest issue also. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article was since updated to address notability issue. Individual is an Edward R. Murrow winner which is more prestigious than an Emmy in journalism. Very well known for coverage of hurricanes and sits on national journalism leadership boards. Is regularly featured in television industry publications [[User:Newsguyupdate|Newsguyupdate] (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.53.104 (talk) [reply]
It might help if you clarify and source which of the various Edward R. Murrow Awards he has one? If it is the one by the RTNDA, where he is also listed as member, it seems to be a community award. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears it has now been referenced to and is linked to on the wiki page which previously had issues with missing references. I work at NBC and am familiar with his work. Did a google and it appears he won the award with the host of the coverage Maggie Rodriguez. Based on frequent publication individual may merit inclusion. --Newsguyupdate (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.53.104 (talk) [reply]
Well the added link tells me that WFOR-TV, Miami has won a 2007 RTNDA Regional Murrow Award (not a national one), not even mentioning Wells personally, not that RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award as membership organization award would automatically confer notability in any case. Also most of the other sources added are very generic and refer to program etc. So without some good sources about Wells himself, he shouldn't have personal bio here.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to TelevisionWeek article is an interview with Wells which was published. I've also read him as a contributor in other Television Week articles in the past that are published in magazine and not online. The other links back up other claims in article. --Newsguyupdate (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.53.104 (talk) [reply]
  • Strong Keep it appears article was updated to address notability. this is a natl award winner and referenced were posted to the many publications he's been quoted in as wiki references. as someone who works in media, i know he is a well-recognized name for anyone who is trying to get 'in the door.' he is a hiring manager at fox NYCnewz (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)— NYCnewz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'd like to add that I, too, work in media for a New York company and have won Murrow Awards as part of a team. He is not a hiring manager at Fox, as you speak, but WNYW. There is a distinct difference between working for a major network and for a local station. If hiring manager is the only qualification you require, then every HR representative should be posted on here.Burghboy80 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working for a company based in New York (i.e. a Pittsburgh station), and actually working in New York is very different. This person works at the Fox NY headquarters. References cite programs individual has managed and produced with record breaking multi-million dollar revenue, which clarifies he is not simply a 'hiring manager' I've also read several contributions he's made in print publication TelevisionWeek. I think this merits inclusion for anyone researching the big media companies in New York--Newsguyupdate (talk) 20:41, 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 non-notable --Stephen 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Wright (Professional Gamer)

Pete Wright (Professional Gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from the obvious style and conflict of interest issues (having apparently been written by the subject of the article himself), notability seems questionable; while the gaming team Birmingham Salvo does have a WP article and sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:V, individual members do not; sources go no further than a couple of mentions by name in the Metro and Mirror as far as I can tell. ~Matticus UC 12:27, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Burger

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

This article was created by Wburglett (talk · contribs), who is likely to be the subject of the article. Twice notices about non-notability and reading like a CV have been attached, but this user has taken them down after a while. Notability of an academic can be difficult because many are widely published. However, this is a fact of the academic career rather than a claim of notability. All the notability claimed is self-referential. I move that this article be deleted on grounds of non-notability, keeping in mind that autobiographical articles are frowned upon. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper


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

The result was Delete Not notable, for now. --Stephen 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Troisi

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

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BanRay 22:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was posted by an IP on the talk page of this AfD rather than the page itself, I do not endorse the opinion but copy it here for the sake of completeness: ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep James Troisi's page. He's literally games away from a senior start. He's played in many friendlies, including in a recent trial with Roda JC. He also nearly made the final squad for Australia's World Cup Qualifier against Qatar, despite not yet having played first team football. Once again, first team football for this kid AND MORE, like Senior National Team selection, is just around the corner. Please stick with this entry as he's considered one of Australia's most promising talents who may impact for us as soon as Australia's next World Cup Qualifier against China on March 26th, though I suspect he may see first team football at club level, just before then ;) .
  • Although he has recently been involved with the full national team and is listed as a first team member of the Newcastle squad he hasnt made a debut, so page can be deleted and restored when he does so. Nufc2006 (talk) 16:16, 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 - A possible borderline claim to notability as composer is outweighed by a rather widespread agreement that there aren't enough independent sources for a biography. Tikiwont (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Vincent

Michael L. Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Non notable musician, no non-trivial sources, fails WP:BIO I have done a google search and cant find any published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent or independent of the subject. BigDunc (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is little coming up on google for him, but this is not unusual for a contemporary composer. There are 4 independent news stories from canadian news papers concerning his work on a notable project cited. His opera is also listed in a reputable opera database. His piece "Essence" was included on a publicly available CD of electroacoustic works, and he is also listed in a significant composers community website (Canadian Electroacoustic Community). These sources seem reliable and intellectually independent and seem to be a reflection of the notability of this composer.Gregg Potts (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry they won't get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 February 2008
  • Delete - there is little or nothing available about this supposedly notable opera, outside of a non-notable advertising-supported website; "publicly available" is not the same as "signed by a major label," but rather just a step above self-publishing; and "community website" = "forum= = "not a reliable source." The notes that talk about Triaspora do not, in many cases, even mention his involvement, and thus certainly fail any test of notable mention. The Georgia Straight I consider a reliable source; but neither article from the Straight cited so much as mentions Vincent's name in passing. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response

    • response - Regarding the comment on my "vested interest," of myself by TRAVELLINGCAR, I can assure you it is my sole intent to add to the wiki content, and there is nothing wrong with supporting a wiki entry questioned notability using the facts. Remember, this is debate should be made using the facts alone and not users personal opinions behind others intent. Gregg Potts (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - per our guidelines on conflict of interest, if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors... You have failed to do either. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response -Again your personal assumptions are not relevant to this debate regarding the notability of Michael Vincent. I have respond to the comment, and assured you I have no conflicts of interest. Like you I've been assuming good faith. This is my first article, and I believe he is a notable addition to wikipedia so I have added it. 5 min after adding it, it was consistently tagged for speedy deletion, and passed despite the continued attacks. The evidence has been disregarded. It is a shame there are many who seem interested in arguing in the removal of relevant wiki material.Gregg Potts (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response -What no-one seems to be admitting here is that he has been established as notable according to point 2 of the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines for a composer. It states:

"Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time." His musical theatre work Triaspora was performed in a notable theatre (Chan Centre for the Performing Arts), Vancouver's premiere theatre (http://www.chancentre.com/), and it had a reasonable run. Triaspora was covered by 4 independent news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", "The North Shore News", and Georgia Straight) all previously cited, and effectively establishing it as FACT. Michael Vincent is a notable composer period.Gregg Potts (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Orangemike states the only reliable source that can be found remotely related is the Straight and it doesn't even mention this non notable composer, also if there is a WP:COI it would be good if it was cleared up thanks.BigDunc (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - These 4 objective news sources are about Vincent's project not Vincent. The point of these sources were to establish the notability of the musical theatre work. His participation in the project is noted on this website <http://www.orchidensemble.com/multi_triaspora.php>. It is not unusual for news stories to not mention the composer when many performers are involved ie: dance, live visual images, and a Chinese chamber ensemble. AGAIN, his musical theatre work Triaspora was performed in a notable theatre (Chan Centre for the Performing Arts), Vancouver's premiere theatre (http://www.chancentre.com/), and it had a reasonable run. Triaspora was covered by 4 independent news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", "The North Shore News", and Georgia Straight) all previously cited, and effectively establishing it as FACT. According to wiki own rules, they are notable. Interesting no-one is arguing this particular FACT.Gregg Potts (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - I think this debate is a good one, and appreciate all the stimulating comments being made on this! However, nobility of a composer is not synonymous with fame how how many times his name in mentioned in the press. It is based on the 6 clear criteria listed in wiki guidelines regarding notability of a composer:
For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:
  • 1: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
  • 2: Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
  • 3: Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
  • 4: Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
  • 5: Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
  • 6: Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.
Now according to this, if he satisfies any of these, he is unarguably notable (for wiki standard). I have proved with verifiable sources he satisfies point 2. Evidence of this is found in 4 independent news stories describing the project- (not Vincent specifically, but the project). Evidence found on this website that claims he was a co-composer: <http://www.orchidensemble.com/multi_triaspora.php>. According to wiki's own rules, specific for composers he clearly qualifies as a noted composer. Case closed, he should not be deleted. I suggest that if some sources need editing, then they need to be edited, but the validity of this articles presence on wiki should not be in question.Gregg Potts (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not seen a reliable source that says the theatre was notable, or that the run was of a reasonable length, thus point 2 is not satisfied to the best of my knowledge. There are still no non-trivial independent reliable sources, please provide them. One Night In Hackney303 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are few notable Canadian composers - Michael Vincent is one of them. He has made his mark in every corner of Canada, with ongoing performances from Montreal to Vancouver. He has an audience which appreciates his pioneering movement to use pre-recorded elements (text especially) and make the classical genre approachable to mass audiences; this isn't a common theme here just yet (as opposed to the states). True, his name may not be all over the press (as he is commissioned to compose most of his works), but his works are and that should speak for his notability, not against - that he is sought after by Canadian performers to compose for them.Wasfou514 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)wasfou 514 — Wasfou514 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • response -Again, these sources mention his project which makes them relevant in establishing the significance of it an an entity in itself. His link to the project are provided elsewhere- the project website. The two combine to establish his notability as per point 2 of the wiki rule regarding notability of composers (see above for full enumerated list).Gregg Potts (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they might establish the notability of his project, but they do nothing to assert his notability. Major composers are notable, there's no evidence this one is. I also echo the above comments, COI is an issue here as you're unable to look at the article from a neutral POV. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can see, the theatre isn't notable, and the run wasn't of a reasonable length - thus meaning he fails point 2. It's quite clear by your inability to actually provide sources that mention Vincent in any level of detail that they don't exist, meaning he fails the primary notability criterion. Also as his press "coverage" (and I use that term loosely) is only in the context of the show in question, WP:MUSIC recommends merging him there anyway, thereby removing most of this puff piece. One Night In Hackney303 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone provide a WP:V and WP:RS link regarding the notability of theatre?BigDunc (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching "Vancouver Performing Arts Theatres" brings up many sources: According to the official website of the city (Vancouver), it is mentioned:<http://www.hellobc.com/en-CA/SightsActivitiesEvents/ArtsCulturalHistoricalExperiences/TheatrePerformingArts/Vancouver.htm> It is also included on this website <http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca/resources/cultural-facility-profiles/artspace-north/chan-centre.html> Ticketmaster (Canada's primary source for concert tickets) has many shows listed: <http://www.ticketmaster.ca/venue/139280> This seems to suggest it is well established, and notable.
In regards to the run, according to the cited website and the source articles it was performed over a 3 days, and two different cities and venues. <http://www.asiancanadian.net/2007/09/triaspora-orchid-ensemble-moving-dragon.html> and one place here: cached file: <http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:7FXK_2E4RLUJ:www.harbourliving.ca/event/crimson-coasts-infringing-dance-festival-triaspora/2007-09-15/+InFringing+Dance,+Nanaimo+BC,+Triaspora&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari>. Looks like a reasonable run.Gregg Potts (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid WP:DRAMA won't help. :) Vincent's alleged notability is as a composer; theater-related guidelines, even if they existed, wouldn't be much help here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly won't, it's a redirect to WP:ANI ;) One Night In Hackney303 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, might I remind you of the notability criteria: "Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time." Triaspora ran for a reasonable run and was notable as a project - this alone should satisfy the notability requirement.
    In addition, although Generation X did not see a run, it was a notable project involving slam style poetry and did place Michael Vincent at a different level as a composer by collaborating with notable artist and author, Douglas Coupland.
    Finally, many of his pieces have seen multiple performances in notable theatres and in different incarnations.
    I believe that if you're going to claim :COI, you should perhaps claim it on yourself, as it seems you have a vendetta against an actual young and notable Canadian composer and we as the audience will continue to defend this sought after composer's notability, just as we would John Oswald's (already included on wiki) or Arne Eigenfeldt's. No need to add sources, they're all there and I'm sure there will be more to come over time as performances and press arise.Wasfou514 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)wasfou514[reply]
  • There's nothing to prove the theatre is notable, and I don't consider that any reasonable thinking person would consider a three day run in any way notable. And yet again, I request sources that cover Vincent with more than a namecheck. Do they exist? Yes/No (delete as applicable) One Night In Hackney303 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: According to the links, the run was 3 days, in 2 cities. Two were in Vancouver at the Chan Centre, and 1 was in Nanaimo as part of a larger dance festival. The run is short compared to a broadway show, or an event an opera at the MET, but I think reasonable for a contemporary musical theatre show with multimedia, and modern dance.Gregg Potts (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: -AGAIN, according to wiki guideline regarding the notability of composers, Vincent qualifies for category number 2:
"Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time."
This point has been established with 4 factual news sources (previously cited) and all but one were proved significant news sources ("The Province", The "Vancouver Sun", and Georgia Straight). The production website (previously cited) clearly states that he composed the music. The theatre has been proved a notable, and the run a reasonable length. If you can't disprove these facts, then no matter what anyone personally believe, according to wiki guidelines he is notable and should qualify as notable. You may not like it, but "thems the rules folks" :)Gregg Potts (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The burden still exists to provide multiple nontrivial sources, i.e. lengthy writeups about this composer and his works/career, to establish notability. The sources provided may be reliable, but they are trivial mentions, at best. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: Basic notability guidelines are only 'generally' relevant, and mainly concern cases with no specific stipulation unique to the artcile topic. Remember this is an article about a composer, and wiki has special guidelines concerning the notability of composers. These special composer notability standards should be the ones used to measure Vincent's notability: WP:MUS (see section re:composer). As a side note, I think it is helpful to understand something about the Canadian contemporary classical music 'scene'. In Canada, (and perhaps elsewhere), unless a composer is famous worldwide, they are usually just mentioned as composer of the works in question (as some have described as trivial)- they are often overshadowed by the performers and the musical event itself. I suspect this is why there are special guideline reserved for occupations requiring a unique set of notability standards.Gregg Potts (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Bio#Basic_criteria. I've been to every source provided, and there is not one of those listed that is anything more than a trivial mention. In fact, a some don't even mention him at all, and this is an article about him, not his works. It is early in his career, wait until there is something substantial that the music community has written about him. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally changing to Keep per Voceditenore's extensive research below on the subject. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: I don't think anyone is stating any one of these prove notability on there own. However they all help map the work of this composer and are relevant to the article. Remember citations are provided not just to prove notability, but also offer links to further information on relevant to topics, idea etc raised in the article. His notability is established using wiki guidelines for establishing notability of a composer. WP:MUS (see section re:composer)Gregg Potts (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response Please note that there are separate criteria for musicians and composers, see WP:MUSIC. This leads to our going around in circles - In an effort to not repeat everything listed above: The coverage of composed musical theatre production is from reliable sources and not trivial, as complete articles were dedicated to the production. As his contribution as composer to the production has been confirmed in the various articles, and as the production ran for a reasonable run, his notability is also confirmed.137.82.115.250 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC) — 137.82.115.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The article says: "Michael also contributed as one of four composers in a . . . work entitled Triaspora, performed at the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts on September 21-22, 2007 . . ." . The Chan Centre is indeed notable in the sense that well-known international artists perform there, such as Emanuel Ax and Bryn Terfel. So this does appear to establish some (possibly slight) degree of notability given that Vincent's name appears in reviews.-- Kleinzach (talk) (Opera Project) 09:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Followup: I now understand that the performance was not on the main stage, so I am withdrawing my opinion above. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral (See my comment Looking further below. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)) I'm here because of a notice at the Opera Project asking for comment. You might want to look at the criteria we use in borderline cases, such as this one, which was at the very minimum of the notabilty required for a keep. In my view, Michael Vincent isn't there yet. I've checked out all the independent sources provided in the article and in my view, they are not enough to establish notability for the following reasons:[reply]
  1. Vincent is only mentioned in passing as one of the four composers whose pieces were used in Triaspora, a dance work. He's not mentioned at all in some of the 'references' provided for these performances. All the articles for Triaspora are similar and are about the choreographer/dancers of the Moving Dragon ensemble and (to a certain extent), the musicians in the Orchid Ensemble - not him. The references for his other work are all simple announcements of performances, i.e. trivial. Neither he nor any of his compositions has been the subject or significant component of non-trivial independent coverage as required by the Music Notability Guidelines. The fact that he doesn't appear much on a Google search isn't necessarily an indication of non-notability. Coverage of contemporary composers and their work may appear only in specialist publications that aren't online. Having said that, these have to be reputable, independent, (and non-student) publications. However, I note that there are no references to such articles about the subject or his work listed in his Wikpedia article. I'm sure if they existed, they'd be listed.
  2. Triaspora may have been performed in a notable arts centre, but note that it wasn't on the main stage of the Chan centre, it was in the Telus Studio Theatre. Its 'run' consisted of 2 performances, and Vincent was not the sole composer's work used in the production. In fact, I'm wondering exactly how much of the music was provided by him. Even the production itself is only borderline notable (at least judging from the sources provided).
  3. The opera he's composed was part of his Master of Fine Arts degree requirement at Simon Fraser University, and so far has only been performed as a student production.
  4. There is no indication that his music has even been published, let alone by a noted music publisher.
  5. As for the 'awards' listed, they are all student grants and fellowships, including the "Alain Award in Electroacoustic Composition" at Concordia University (see [3]).
  6. The assertion in a comment above that "He has made his mark in every corner of Canada, with ongoing performances from Montreal to Vancouver" has no verification at all in independent, reliable, and notable Candadian sources. Again, if proper verification is available to justify such a statement, why is it not in the article? I'm afraid that "I've heard of so-and-so and they're great" is not a valid argument in a notability discussion on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • addenda to 1. & 2. above To call Triaspora a musical theatre work which Vincent composed or to refer to it as "His musical theatre work" is stretching the limits of the notability guideline for composers to its breaking point in my view. In addition, the only other performance apart from the 2 in the studio theatre of the Chan Center was a single performance in Malaspina University-College Theatre. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • addenda to 3. above To say (as someone did higher up the page) that Vincent "collaborated with notable artist and author, Douglas Coupland" for his opera Generation X is also not quite accurate. Having read Vincent's M.F.A. thesis, Coupland does not appear to have had any significant input in the project or have collaborated actively apart from granting Vincent permission to use parts of his novel for the dialogue.[4]
  • Looking further Inspired by Michael Bednarek's comments, I've pursued this a little further, as I wanted to make sure we weren't doing the article (and its subject) an injustice. What has been presented so far as evidence is not really enough to establish notability. His role in Triaspora was slightly exaggerated (as was it having been performed in a 'notable theatre' in a 'reasonable run'), and the purported 'collaboration' with Douglas Coupland was frankly misleading. However, in the case of a contemporary composer, having more than one composition played by more than one reasonably notable ensemble might possibly help make up for an almost total lack of independent published coverage of either him or his compositions. So I followed up some of the others mentioned in the article (and surprisingly not mentioned in the discussion here). What the article calls the 'Bozzini String Quartet' is actually Quatuor Bozzini who are reasonably notable, e.g.[5]; as is the Bradyworks ensemble's director Tim Brady (not currently linked to his Wikipedia article in the Michael L. Vincent article) and John Oswald who is linked. Vincent himself is not mentioned on the official web sites of any of them, but I have no reason to doubt that they did play his work or include it in their programs. The ÉuCue festival at Concordia University, (where a lot of his work seems to have been played does get a few mentions in Computer Music Journal published by MIT Press. (I can only access the abstracts though, not the articles). Is all that enough? I don't know. Possibly. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks please. “Knowing who he is” is insufficient reason to keep an article. Sources must prove notability. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it’s more likely that you are actually Michael L. Vincent and these “trolls” are friends of yours. Don’t you find it suspicious that Storyrates1987 vandalized UserRockpocket’s talk page with the words “leave our page alone!” [7].Also what advantage would Storyrates1987 get from randomly leaving a message on your talk page saying “Got your message, happy to help save your article. David is here with me and in addition to voting we'll make a couple extra copies of the article so they can't get them all”? Also, if you’re not Michael L. Vincent how did you get the rights to that photo? You’ll forgive me if I find your messages denying knowledge of such canvassing slightly improbable. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok this is getting very negative, and feel like I am being victimized here. I got the picture from this page : http://www.last.fm/music/Michael+Vincent. Trolls are in in to start havoc and get off on stuff like trying to frame people. Think about it, who would write me a message like that on a pubic page where everyone can clearly see it... TROLLS. If you look at my record, you will see I have been arguing for this article using only the facts. That is all I need. Perhaps it was you?Gregg Potts (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

I was asked to run a checkuser here as there's some very obvious disruptive sock-puppetry going on. For the AfD reviewing admin, the following accounts are  Confirmed as being one editor:

  1. Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Girlgirlgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ❤ 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All except Storyrates1987 have been indefblocked for violating the sockpuppet policy. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly. Girlgirlgirl was blocked indef. for vandalism back on February 19. Corvus cornixtalk 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock. Corvus cornixtalk 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state clearly here now, as there has been some confusion; Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to the confirmed socks above and has not been implicated in any abusive sock-puppetry whatsoever - Alison ❤ 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing?

Per these discussions, it appears that User:Greg Potts has been canvassing for votes. Corvus cornixtalk 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see the discussion above. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response -Myself and this article delete debate have been victimized by a TROLL(S). The offending message was written on my public message page, for it to be found, and my subsequent accusation. I find this very troubling, and feel helpless to fight against it. The only person I contacted was Eastmain, and asked him to take a look at it. THAT IS ALL! I have been arguing for the merits of this article, against a huge deluge of negativity, accusation of bias, ownership, and now canvassing. I am quite frankly tired of it. This stops now or I am leaving this debate.Gregg Potts (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - I feel Gregg has made a strong case for himself. While I feel his arguments in this discussion have been both stubborn and wrong, I also feel that the witless vandalism, like the grotesque "racism" accusation made by an IP some while back, do not sound like him in any way. I say we assume good faith and go on about the discussion without accusations. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the socks are disappointing as they could ruin the future of this article altogether, I don't think the socks are Greg at all. It seems Greg has had a level head throughout this whole debate. Although, and no offense, but I am curious to know who GregPotts was before this article creation, just seems very knowledgeable of wiki jargon and guidelines for this being his first and only article edited after opening the account on Feb 22 -- maybe just edited as an anon before which is fine of course, but I can't help but wonder. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • response Actually I'll take that as a compliment. As a contemporary music nut, this is my first crack at writing a wiki article and I took the time to figure out how to do it. There was a learning curve, but all the information is there, and I have been learning as I go. I decided to add this page because wiki seemed to be missing many (IMO) notable living Canadian composers and performers. After adding the article I was certainly not expecting this huge debate, not to mention being FRAMED as a Jim Henson of 'sock-puppeteers', (a wiki term new to me). You'll are a lively bunch I'll give you that!Gregg Potts (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad, because it is a compliment and I hope this ordeal doesn't discourage you in editing. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I have very grave concerns about how this debate has progressed; however since the sock puppetry and personal attacks seems to be resolved for the time being there is no harm done. To be fair we have no reason to believe that Gregg has personally used sockpuppets at any time. Unless there are further incidents I suggest we place our focus back on the article. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Irrespective of GregPotts' past incarnation (or lack therefore), his account is currently a WP:SPA. His first action was a spurious tagging of Michael Vincent (with a clear claim of notability) for speedy deletion [8] (presumably to make way for the creation of this page, his second edit [9]) and pretty much every edit since has been defending his article. That said, if he or anyone else has a good reason it should be kept, then that should be heard, whether it is his first of 10, 000th edit. I suggest we let those who wish to express an opinion do so (as long as they do so politely) and leave the closing admin to draw his or her own conclusions about the motivation of the contributions. If it is deleted, Gregg can put this down to experience. Rockpocket 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. Sadly I think this article should be deleted as there really aren't enough reliable and reputable sources that actually mention Michael Vincent. My suspicion is that the information presented on the page is accurate and true but as there are no verifiable references (other than the composers own website) that directly link the composer to the works mentioned than really wikipedia can't include the information. I would also like to say that I am somewhat appalled at the behavior of several people in this debate. Sock puppetry by new users is often a result of disrespectful and unkind behavior by over zealous and rightouesly superior wikipedia editors, which in this case I think sums up the behavior of several of the above mentioned comments. A little kindness and care in the way you phrase your arguements can often prevent other users from resorting to desperate measures because they feel victimised.Nrswanson (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of actual real-world impact or notice. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Voceditenore above. His Looking Further comment did not demonstrate enough significance. Canuckle (talk) 00:40, 2 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Dalla Valle

Lauri Dalla Valle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, 16-year-old player who is part of Liverpool youth system. The PROD was contested under the claim he played with JIPPO (a Finnish second division team I strongly doubt to be fully professional), and extensive media coverage (despite the fact many of the given sources come from a Wordpress blog, and others does not cover solely the player in detail, as it is requested by WP:N). Angelo (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and what about the multiple, reliable third-party sources? GiantSnowman (talk) 12:53, 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 —αlεx•mullεr 10:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Aeterna

Luna Aeterna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears that this article may be a content fork with copied & pasted material from List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK). For GFDL concerns, I've merged their histories. I am protecting the resultant redirect for a time to ensure that the article is not restored against the consensus of this and the preceding AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Adams-Short

AfDs for this article:
Grace Adams-Short (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It appears that this article was previously voted as a redirect, but this has been recreated a number of times, my nomination for delete, then merge is because she is not notable other than that of being in a reality TV show and very little since. Another reason to delete is most of these are about her time in BB and none of these contents are relevant for its own articles. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 21:05, 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. Although the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline, but rather provide additional inclusion criteria. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Upon inspection of the sources provided in the article, however, of which there were three:

  • The first one, although very brief, does focus solely on the subject. It provides basic listing-type information (trivial) along with critical commentary "The right-back captained Liverpool to victory", and "with some attacking displays from his defensive position".
  • The second one, covers the subject of this article as just one player in a game, but does provide a scosch amount of critical commentary, "Stephen Darby surged forward to fire a dangerous ball into the area", making it a stretch as a borderline source for WP:N.
  • The third one provides only a trivial mention that he was on the roster of a game, with no critical commentary or statistics.

taken collectively, the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore when we consider the general notability guideline, we find the criteria is not met, and as everyone here seems to agree, the subject-specific guideline is also not met. My decision therefore is Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Darby

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 09:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

  • Keep per my arguments in previous AfD. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So, what's the plan to incorporate the previous debate into this? Or is this how it will go down when you don't get the result you want - withdraw the nomination and let someone else come up with a new one the next day? Let's say this discussion is about to end in a 'no consensus'; what's there to say that Robwingfield don't withdraw his nomination on Friday with Number 57 coming up with a new nomination Saturday? Now, I'm not saying that this is the reason behind this second nomination, but this is certainly inappropriate, as ChrisTheDude points out. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's certainly not what I'm going to do - please don't cast unfounded accusations. If the AfD goes against WP:ATHLETE and decides to keep the article, then so be it. Neither am I "gaming the system" - there is no AfD that has run to completion on this article... this is the first. robwingfield «T•C» 10:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstood me - I was probably not making myself clear. I'm not at all saying "gaming the system" is your motive, nor Number 57's; (on the contrary, I am totally convinced that it isn't). I was speaking hypothetically, pointing out the inappropriate in nominating an AfD so shortly after a previous AfD on the same article has been withdrawn and taking this nomination as an example of how a procedure like this could be mis-used. Even if there doesn't seem to be missing too many people from the old nomination, perhaps it would have been better to have opened up the previous AfD and to have continued where we left off. Sebisthlm (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes, WP:FOOTY/Notability. No professional appearances, no notability: it's so simple... --Angelo (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the reason for my withdrawal of the original AfD, while he doesn't pass WP:BIO#Athletes, WP:FOOTY/Notability, he does pass WP:BIO#Basic criteria which overrides those two anyway, in that he has a profile on the UEFA site, which is reliable and independent. If UEFA finds him important enough to mention then so should we. John Hayestalk 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the sake of clarity, could at least someone advocating a deletion adress the point of the general WP:N criteria. Are you saying the additional criteria (professional football) overrides the basic criteria (significant coverage in reliable sources), or that the coverage isn't significant enough? Sebisthlm (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - this is just simply not enough time between AfDs. matt91486 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Hayes -- while he may not meet the guideline for athletes, the overriding basic bio criteria has been satisfied. Let us try to see the forest for the trees. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment personally I don't agree with people saying WP:BIO criteria is satisfied, I don't think enough substantial and reliable sources have been provided. For instance, a BBC profile with a load of zeros is not a reliable source covering the subject in substantial depth. --Angelo (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll agree it wouldn't be enough on it's own, but in combination with the others... (If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability). John Hayestalk 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • However all these profiles do not establish notability on their own, since they do not say anything about the subject, other than his full name, his club and other statistical-only info (e.g., height). So I wouldn't even consider them as "reliable sources". --Angelo (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would say "substantial coverage" and "reliable sources" are two different concepts. Lack of depth in the coverage doesn't affect the reliability of the source, in the same way as an obvious bullshit source doesn't become more reliable just because it's thorough. However, I understand your concern; it doesn't exactly seem clear how insubstantial sources can be to, bundled together, confer notability. My view (as always) is that if a single League 2 game is notable, why wouldn't a player profiled by UEFA's official site be notable? Sebisthlm (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All players which are part of UEFA list for a European club are listed by the official website. As you probably know, a minimum number of players who come from the club's youth system is mandatory. As clubs are not always able to provide these players, they usually fill the remaining spots with youth team footballers. This seems to be the case, as it is for Matteo Darmian of AC Milan (who is however notable only because of a couple of minutes in a domestic cup match). I don't really think a single mention of his name in the UEFA website is enough for ensuring notability, I'd rather instead to see an article from an independent secondary resource talking in depth about the subject. --Angelo (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah I know all about UEFA's squad registration rules. And I didn't mean solely a profile at uefa.com confers notability, but it might together with other sources. I think your example of Darmian is telling, he's a youth player for one of the World's biggest clubs, he's a youth International at U-17, U-18 and U-19 level. He has actually played in a league game for Milan in one of the World's biggest leagues, as well as a handful of cup games, and he turned 18 in December! Of 25-30 players in Milan's primavera squad, which should be one of Italy's absolute best, they chose him to be included in the CL squad. To me he's already more notable than half of the players in League 2. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • AC Milan's primavera team didn't win a single domestic trophy in years, so I am unsure it's one of the best in the world. Darmian, however, managed to become a professional football player (he made his Serie A debut), even if he is not part at all of the first team. But what if tomorrow Stephen Darby decides to retire from football and work in a bakery? Would he be notable yet? --Angelo (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have raised this rhetorical question before, although it's a question worth asking. I will give you the same answer I gave before. If Darby were to quit fotball tomorrow I would agree that he wouldn't go down in history as one of the greatest footballers of all time. On the other hand, I would say he wouldn't be less notable than Robert Grant (who since you and I had our first discussion in May 2007 have doubled his League 2 games to two), a player who clearly satisfy the notability criteria. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Hayes -- Alexf42 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the notability criteria as set out in WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE. Surely the notability of a professional footballer can only be judged by whether he has actually played professional football? The article can be recreated at a click of a button when he does make his professional debut, keeping the article just serves to encourage other editors to create more clutter on non-notable youth footballers. A problem highlighted by the fact he is included in Category:Liverpool F.C. players, how is this sensible when he has never played for the actual team? English peasant 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Hayes. This without question passes the Mzoli's test, as well as our own biographical guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Athlete by a margin. Not a notable sportsman by any stretch of the imagination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 2 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. Fram (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPlay Manager

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

Article about a web based game that hasn't released a game yet. The article has ited its notability by being on the fr and sv wiki's as well however the sv article was created by the same individual who created this article and the fr has also been tagged for lack of notability. There are no secondary sources illustrating notability. –– Lid(Talk) 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why suddenly there is a warning for deletion of the English version, while the French version a warning it should be verified and there is nothing at the Dutch version. Why is every admin deciding so differently in those different languages while the content of all the texts is the same. Maybe it should be open for discussion with other admins before just adding a deletion mark on that page. If you don't like the content, we shall be flexible in some way. And I ask myself the question why we should be commercialising a product that isn't yet ready/selling?

This page will be translated into 35 languages and I am sure all the admins will react differently. Make one discussion for all the languages. It would be stupid to block 10 and let 25 be online. These pages are being translated as I speak, I hope you can reconcider your thoughts or at least help us by pointing out the parts that are Over The Top.

Thank you--Vjeetje (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why all the fuss about PPM? There are many games who have page on wikipedia. For example Hattrick, online soccer manager,...--81.83.226.52 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if we delete all the dates and numbers; then all information is reliable right? And you can verifie everything on the powerplaymanager site! Thank you--81.83.226.52 (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We try to write this article as neutral as possible and all data can be verified at the homepage! I really don't understand why it is so hard to add this game with more than 35.000 players to wiki. P.S.: we had a general check and changed some parts to be more conformable.--Vjeetje (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be applying your own definition of of "notable". Please read WP:N for Wikipedia's definition. --JD554 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article. If you consider those rules, the Hattrick page on wikipedia is full of violations of these rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hattrick I quote the first paragraph: "Hattrick (also known internally simply as HT) is an online, browser-based, football management game (MMOG) developed in Sweden. Currently the game contains 118 different countries, each with its own league pyramid, and 42 different language versions (Since October 20, 2007). As of August 2007, the game had over 960,000 users, each with their own team.[1] Hattrick is in its 34th season and has been running since August 30, 1997.[2] Most users cite Season 11, which began October 15, 2000, as the beginning of Hattrick as it is today."--Vjeeje (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there may be some rubbish on Wikipedia that needs deleting doesn't mean we should allow more. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --JD554 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give me a specific tip that can help me further to approve the content. Or does the content doesn't matter but the project PowerPlay Manager, that can not be included into wikipedia. I'm really eager to help to keep this article alive, thx!--Vjeetje (talk) 22:46, 1 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 Keep. Appears to just about scrape through WP:MUSIC Black Kite 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Dalla-Vee

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

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.[10] 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]
  • 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 Wrong venue. For now, this title will redirect to Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb. If that is not a valid redirect (I'm no expert), then that is a discussion for WP:RFD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halimah bint Abdullah

Halimah bint Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Halimah bint Abdullah is not the correct name for the person. It is rather Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb(cf. Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb, Encyclopedia of Islam, or search for Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb in Encyclopedia Britannica ). Be happy!! (talk) 08:50, 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. I don't believe there is enough here for WP:BIO. He's an attorney; sometimes attorneys talk about their job to the press. A few "this attorney says" soundbites and a vague wave towards authorship do not convince. No prejudice to recreation with more convincing sources, though I note this article has been re-created an number of times. Black Kite 09:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Minns

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

Autobiography of Non-notable subject. The same article appeared earlier at least six times as Michael Minns and Michael minns and was speedily deleted on each occasion - see also User_talk:Michael_Minns and the Edit summary with which the article was created. Ros0709 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment/concern - User:Roughhauser, who is now editing the Minns article, may be a sockpuppet of User:Michael Minns (who has been given the usual notices about COI and autobiography); look at Roughhauser's sandbox! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the article was repeatedly speedily deleted on grounds of notability, and Michael Minns told of the problems with creating autobiographies, Roughhauser was newly registered and created the near identical article we now have, using the edit summary cited above which clearly references the article's previous history. I have no doubt it is the same editor but as the Michael Minns incarnation was not banned and has not contributed since this can be legitimately allowed. As an attempt to circumvent any accusation of WP:COI it's pretty lame and as the Michael Minns incarnation was at final warning for recreating the article (and would therefore likely be banned if he had created the article this time) it could be considered an attempt to circumvent policy. However, this nomination is about the article itself: if the editor had a conflict of interest it may have impaired their judgement on notability when they created it but it can still be reviewed objectively on that basis by everyone else here. Ros0709 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to me that the article for Michael Minns was just recently created by a new editor named "Michael Minns." The article was deleted by another editor, and was repeatedly re-created by editor Michael Minns. The article as originally written just came across to me as blatant advertising. Other editors deleted the article, and Michael Minns continued to re-create it. After the re-creation tactic did not work for Michael Minns, Roughhauser came on the scene and re-created the article yet again.

Is the subject notable?

The material in the article cites to court cases involving Michael Minns as legal counsel. Minns' clients won in some cases, lost in at least one other -- Richard Hatch. A relationship with a well-known person (e.g., Hatch) does not confer notability. (See "Invalid criteria" under WP:Notability (people).) Being the lawyer for Richard Hatch in Hatch's criminal tax case does not in my view support notability for purposes of Wikipedia. Similarly, being the lawyer in the other cases mentioned also does not support notability, no matter how important or historic Michael Minns or Roughhauser feels the cited victories are. Michael Minns and Roughhauser (and I, Famspear) are Wikipedia editors, not independent, third party sources. This is in no way a denigration of the subject of the article as a tax lawyer, etc. Rather, the Wikipedia concept of notability for an individual relates in my view more directly to the following Wikipedia concepts.

from WP:Notability (people):

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability.

And:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Has the subject, Michael Minns himself, received "significant recognized awards or honors"? Has the subject "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" in the field of tax law? It looks to me as though Minns has been quoted as a legal expert in a few articles on topics such as the recent tax convictions of actor Wesley Snipes. Again, merely being quoted a few times in the national media -- even in the New York Times -- does not in and of itself support Wikipedia notability. Further, the articles in question were not about Michael Minns.

I don't think I could come into Wikipedia and say, "Look, these are all the important things I have done, these are the important cases I won for my clients, so I want an article about me here" and get an article about me, say or "look, I was quoted as a legal expert a few times in the national media, so I want an article about me here in Wikipedia."

For purposes of an encyclopedia, the notability of a person is assessed not on the basis of how important that person believes his accomplishments are. Neither is is based on how important his friends believe his accomplishments are. Notability is based more properly on what previously published, independent, reliable, third party sources have already written about that person or about what that person has accomplished. Famspear (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt the earth. References given do not provide a convincing case of notability. This article has been recreated six times (!); there is strong evidence of WP:Conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, etc. Time to drive a stake through its heart.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys really talk this way about people? That seems a bit too funny for words...How ridiculous. I'm not a sock puppet of anyone. The article stands on its own merit, and as such if you have questions, you should and can just ask them. If you don't understand the merit of the cases mentioned, please be intelligent enough to ask questions and they will be answered. You're kind of being ignorant nazis with guns here. I will reprint the reply to Famspear here, but I will keep going if you shoot me down for bad reasons as I am seeing purported here...
Well, I don't think the implications you set forth are particularly fair or appropriate. I am not Michael Minns. Michael Minns never asked me to write an article about him. I wrote it because it's notable phenomenon in my view and in the view of the tax law media and the major media that I have checked out. As to the more legitimate issues of notability and neutrality, I will address those...The answer to all your questions on notability is an emphatic "Yes". Awards: Yes. Published materials: Yes, of course, part of which is already cited. Contribution historically to field of tax law: Most definitely...Yes. If you want more specifics on anything not already cited in the article, or on the Internal Revenue Service article, or on the Richard Hatch article, or any of the other articles that probably exist including his name, or from the major online media articles like NewYorkTimes.com, perhaps you can go take a look there first and then ask me. Your mention of Wesley Snipes is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. And the article does not state that Minns is notable for merely being a media commentator on such famous cases, nor was the fame issue ever stressed, but rather states (or stated originally before you edits) that his cases are historic. And historic means just that: historic (ie., "notable"). Aside from the two landmark cases listed...Doesn't it stand to reason that if the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, the Associated Press (not to mention previous articles on Wikipedia) all think Michael Minns is notable enough to have already had him on their shows and to comment on law cases and to write about him and his accomplishments, and reprint the material on their websites for anyone to find with so many stories, that he must be notable enough for a Wikipedia article of his own? ...especially seeing as how he is already mentioned by name as a significant critic in Wikipedia's Internal Revenue Service article, in the Richard Hatch tax trial article on Wikipedia, and from what I am being told as I inquire further, probably many other articles on Wikipedia? You are questioning the article and there seems to be a question of whether or not this article is neutral, or if there is a conflict of interest on MY side...what about a tax lawyer Wikipedia editor who takes a sensitive approach to another tax lawyer being written up? As for the media cited above and in the article, are the main major media suddenly not "independent, reliable, third party sources"? If not, then who is? The two cases cited are two of the most notable tax field cases in relation to the IRS and to the field of tax law in the recent past, and the reason that these two were singled out was their newsworthiness and notability. Moreover, Minns wrote two books on his IRS cases and on the tax code and on the nature of notable tax trials which Ron Paul coauthored. These do not sound to me like facts associated with a non-notable person. When you ask me notable enough, I am thinking that perhaps you are just not familiar enough with this level of detail on the history of the field to see that the references are pointing out the notable aspects, maybe not as famous as Aaron Russo or Joe Banister, but in terms of the field of tax law, this stuff is very significant. The Morans case alone is the biggest clear win on all counts since the 1960s, which says that it either had become much more tough to do, or else much more unlikely to be possible to do. Either way, that is very significant. The article is not a huge one for the reason that it does NOT seek to overexagerate Minn's importance unduly. That is also why Hatch was only now mentioned, as a sidenote that would be of as much interest in his article as it would to those who fund your existing Richard Hatch article's mention of Michael Minns...
I did some additional research and got the following... See the following list of accomplishments that support notability in addition to what has already been set forth in the article:
1983 Arkansas vs. Norma Ginter Capital Murder Trial Not Guilty. co-def. Husband was convicted.
1983 US vs. Irene Udey (Harbouring of Tax Protester Gordon Kahl) Not Guilty. All five co-defendants were convicted. (see millions of papers and a movie and a couple of books)
1989 or 1990? Johnston vs. Daughter largest counterclaim on a divorce in US history. 18.3 Million dollars. Johnston was indicted on the evidence and disbarred. (Texas Lawyer) (appellate court reduced Judgement to 6.1 mill.
1989 US vs. Buford 889 f2d 1405 Largest numbers of aquittals for tax preparer In US History.
Pilot case. 1300 pilots on refund. (not just from American Airlines) Largest Test Case Petitioner reversal in US history.
Led to disbarment of two lawyers for IRS on the pilot case.
US vs. Morans 2007 Largest number of complete sweep aquittals on off shore tax Charges in Us history.
Roughhauser (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
pgagnon999: You have not actually provided ANY evidence as yet. Please do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughhauser (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your rhetoric here is an unusually close match to that of User talk:Michael Minns, let alone your singlemindedness. Sockpuppetry and conflict of interest aside, if any of the above mentioned claims to fame are true and notable, then it should be fairly easy to provide a newspaper article that extols Mr. Minns' fame as a lawyer. Keep in mind that this is not a court of law; as the person who created this article, it is up to you to provide the proof of notability if you would like this article to survive. It would also be worthwhile to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia definition of WP:Civility, yet another social norm here that may not always hold true in the American courtroom. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue? I already said that I created the Michael Minns account, because I was already following his cases, and that is still as accurate now as when I posted it before here before it was deleted (by you?...). I never said I wasn't the same person who originally created the Michael Minns article. You have been saying that. I am trying to learn how to use Wikipedia, but finding it intensely unfriendly to new people (I am one of "the people" whom it presumably serves?) And you also have been deleting my posts and I have already notified some other editors on Wikipedia about that. Now, as for sources that state the "fame" of Michael Minns...the sources are linked to the story in question and to another IRS article, and to a Richard Hatch article. What more can I do for you on the point of verifying what's already been verified?... Just ask, and like I said in the comments you just deleted by me, I will provide them. I can back up anything you want, just have to ask. Glad to! Did you read the sources? Did you check the above facts? Have you done anything besides claim that this article needs to be deleted? You don't seem to have any evidence of your own as to why the subject is not notable or I am somehow acting on behalf of Michael Minns in writing it. He has not asked me to write it. I wrote it on my own initiative, because I thought it belongs there, because it does, if you know tax law cases.Roughhauser (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Roughhauser: I assume from your comment here [12] and your comments just above -- that you are admitting that you are also Wikipedia user "Michael Minns" (but not the actual person Michael Minns), and that you are saying you created the "Roughhauser" account as a second account to "try again" to get the Michael Minns article back into Wikipedia. (Correct me if my assumption is wrong.) Whether you call this procedure "sockpuppetry" or not, this would not be considered acceptable by most Wikipedia editors. Thanks.

Regarding your other comments above, I suggest that you are straying off course, and I would again encourage you to concentrate on looking for previously published, reliable, independent third party sources that have commented about Michael Minns. Again, Michael Minns and lots of other people are quoted from time to time as experts in various media articles; that does not make those people "notable" for purposes of having a Wikipedia article about them.

And, for purposes of notability, we are not here to make our own determination as Wikipedia editors as to whether the cases in which Mr. Minns has participated are "historic" or "important" in the world of tax law. Let's even assume for the sake of argument that the cases were so significant as to be "historic": Now, see if you can find previously published, reliable, independent third party sources that show that Michael Minns himself is notable for purposes of Wikipedia.

And regarding your comments to editor Pgagnon999: "Just ask for whatever you [Pgagnon999] need and for god's sake, give me [Roughhauser] ample time to respond, like more than a single day or hour. Preventing the article from being recreated is totally censorship of the most vile kind, so I hope that is not what you are intending to try and do." [13] -- I am sensing desperation in your "voice" here. Please take a deep breath and relax. I don't think anyone is rushing you here. This is not a "speedy delete" process. I don't remember what the time frame is on a "regular delete", but I think the process has only just begun. And "preventing the article from being recreated" is not "vile censorship." You are overstating your case. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue? I already said that I created the Michael Minns account, because I was already following his cases, and that is still as accurate now as when I posted it before here before it was deleted (by you?...). I never said I wasn't the same person who originally created the Michael Minns article. You have been saying that. I am trying to learn how to use Wikipedia, but finding it intensely unfriendly to new people (I am one of "the people" whom it presumably serves?) And you also have been deleting my posts and I have already notified some other editors on Wikipedia about that. Now, as for sources that state the "fame" of Michael Minns...the sources are linked to the story in question and to another IRS article, and to a Richard Hatch article. What more can I do for you on the point of verifying what's already been verified?... Just ask, and like I said in the comments you just deleted by me, I will provide them. I can back up anything you want, just have to ask. Glad to! Did you read the sources? Did you check the above facts? Have you done anything besides claim that this article needs to be deleted? You don't seem to have any evidence of your own as to why the subject is not notable or I am somehow acting on behalf of Michael Minns in writing it. He has not asked me to write it. I wrote it on my own initiative, because I thought it belongs there, because it does, if you know tax law cases.Roughhauser (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Famspear, noted that it is not speedy delete headed. That helps somewhat, though I hope I have enough of a chance to address. I am posting here what I had just tried to post...(SEE BELOW)
I don't think I have been anything less than civil thus far, have I, Pgangnon999? Can you show me anywhere I have not been civil? And since I am not a lawyer and I never said that anyone was in a "court of law"...I guess it doesn't matter what you think of my "rhetoric" since my speaking is no more "rehtoric" than is your own, right? Now, I have already proven my case on the notablility of this article, but more is repeated below. I let it rest unless anyone has a better or more specific question to put to me not already answered before. Why don't you call Minns directly to ask if he is me or I am him. Then call me and see what I say about it. My number is 713-454-9995. The content is all true and documented, otherwise I would never have posted it. This information is good enough for the New York Times and all the other major media, but not for Wikipedia? (some of these are already quoted IN THE ARTICLE and/or elsewhere in the IRS and Richard Hatch articles already on Wikipedia: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=michael+minns&srchst=nyt There are a ton of NYTimes stories there alone, click each of them if you want. Then do the same for Fox News. Then do the same for Associated Press and MSNBC. Lots of articles with his name in them tied to important/notable tax cases, and yes also to celebrities. That should only help, though, not hurt the argument for his being "notable".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2193245548714102001&q=michael+minns&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=michael+minns&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED8163EF932A1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=3&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E7D81630F930A15750C0A9629C8B63&scp=5&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED8163EF932A1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=3&sq=michael+minns&st=nyt
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257942,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-03-08-hatch-appeal_N.htm
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5557039.html
I am not a tax protester (though I think it's a very, very interesting idea), I am not Michael Minns (though I think he's very interesting figure), I am not asked by Michael Minns to write this article (though that might have paid well now that I consider it), why am I being treated as if I am assumed to be doing something under the rug? I've been asked for sources. Fair enough and I gave them. It seems that someone has a beef with Michael Minns thinking that he is a tax protester or something...he is a trial lawyer who is notable for his role in historic cases. He's notable for having represented celebrities. He's notable for having authored books with Ron Paul. He's notable for the way he is influencing the IRS and their legal tactics. He's notable for having authored work on the concept of "willfulness" as it pertains to such cases which has been published by a law journal (it's not that easy to get such things published no matter who you are).
Roughhauser (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roughouser, your incivility is all over this page; to quote one of many examples, "please be intelligent enough to ask questions and they will be answered. You're kind of being ignorant nazis with guns here." This kind of insulting and combative rhetoric is discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, you claim that I have been "deleting" your posts, which is clearly not the case, as anyone can see from my edit history. Please stop making accusations that have absolutely no merit. It also seems that you are attributing all the comments made here as belonging to me, which is not the case. Please note the signatures beneath the posts. As for this "how are you qualified to even be discussing this issue?" you evidentally are not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that all users (except those that are very new) are "qualified" to contribute here. These rants are not helping your case; please calm down, take a step back & reapproach with a cool head. As for your references above, I'll be glad to look them over when I have a chance; if they offer enough notability, I'll gladly replace my "delete" with "keep."--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have refactored the above text to make it more obvious who said what and when. With indentation all over the place and signatures missing and/or duplicated before, I could not follow who said what and had to check against the edit history. I have not used leading bullets because they indent differently to other indents (and, with IE, all the indenting is different depending on whether you are viewing on-screen, print previewing or actually printing!) Ros0709 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The aim of the discussion is to make succinct points which support keeping or deleting of the article. An administrator will make the final decision according to the Wikipedia policy, guided by the points made. I fear any such guidance will be lost in the noise above. Ros0709 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Keep Roughhauser I've reviewed the references you provided above; the Mike Barnacle interview as well as the co-authorship of books with Ron Paul demonstrate, in my opinion, enough notability. A few pointers with regard to this mess left on Talk: Michael Minns.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these references belong in the article but its author has indicated that he will not be doing it. Ros0709 (talk) 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete can not find any third party sources about the subject, just cases he has been involved in. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the MSNBC Mike Barnicle debate between Michael Minns and an IRS spokeman (and former IRS Commissioner and Chief Counsel) Sheldon Cohen a relevant third party source? And didn't Pgagnon999 mention that same Mike Barnicle debate in the discussion just above? See a video of this debate on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2193245548714102001&q=michael+minns&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 Also, I will be happy to edit the article if if I am actually allowed to do so. If the end result is that the neutrality flag is left on the article until other users edit it and thus "cleanse" it, then so be it. Forgive me for not looking at the page for the past few days, but I have been a bit disappointed and feel a bit "set up" by the proceedings here, in general, thus far. I think some editors go WAY too far with their "duties" on this site, legitimate or otherwise... If the air is "cleared" I am happy to edit it further if neeeded. If so, would anyone make clear to me what is actually needed to make it more WikiKosher? Thanks... Roughhauser (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dear Roughhauser: Notice editor Gtstricky's comment: "can not find any third party sources about the subject, just cases he has been involved in." I haven't watch the entire debate between attorney Michael Minns and former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen that you linked (only the first few minutes), but the subject of the debate appears to be "incompetency, etc., at the Internal Revenue Service" and NOT Michael Minns himself. Further, I respectfully disagree with the opinion that editors here are going "way too far with their duties" here, and I would say that you should not feel that you have been "set up." A new editor cannot reasonably be expected to know all the Wikipedia rules when you begin to edit, but that does not mean that other editors will not enforce the policies and guidelines, even with a new editor. I encourage you to re-read the main policies, etc. Recognize that everything you and I write in Wikipedia is subject to being edited mercilessly by other editors -- all Wikipedia editors are essentially subject to the same restrictions. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:45, 4 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doosraful

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


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klokshopkids.com

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

Does not meet our criteria for notable websites. No independent, published sources are provided, so there is no way to verify the contents of the article. Appears to be self-promotion by someone associated with the site. Proposed delteion notice removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion Gwernol 07:57, 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 speedy keep. Nomination was disruption by blocked sockpuppet. Feel free to discuss merging, but that is an issue for another time. EJF (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogtown, Oakland, California

Dogtown, Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, not references, opening line states its just the nickname for a portion of West Oakland, Oakland, California but its formatted as if it where a neighborhood. Merge any content with West Oakland and delete. Icamepica (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also without prejudice to possibly merging it as suggested by ILike2BeAnonymous, above, something we do not have to decide upon closure of AfD.Wikidemo (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this article does not assert its own verifiability nor does it provide any substantive data on anything besides the streets which supposedly define its marginally established boundaries. The location is not even mentioned with a link, there are no links. I think it could have a decent place in the West Oakland neighborhoods within a neighborhood section. Or else this article needs massive expansion.CholgatalK! 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
isn't that the very definition of a {{stub}} article? --emerson7 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Cholga is one of the suspected sockpuppet accounts in the investigation.Wikidemo (talk) 02:53, 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. While there may be good arguments to merge this, merge can be decided outside of AfD space through a merge proposal. The only argument for deletion is issued by the nominator, a now confirmed sockpuppet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn, Oakland, California

Acorn, Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert its notability. It is an irrelevant public housing project. Merge any useful information into West Oakland, Oakland, California which really is a neighborhood. Icamepica (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note re. sockpuppetry - nominator is a suspected confirmed sockpuppet of a disruptive editor that was deleting sourced material from Oakland, California-related articles. See [[14]], WP:AN/I#Boomgaylove II. This is clearly sourceable,[15] and notable among other things for being one of the first integrated housing projects in Oakland and the location of the murder of Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panthers. This nomination should be speedily closed without prejudice, and nominated if at all once we have a handle on the user:boomgaylove sockpuppet situation. Wikidemo (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Huey Newton claim is unreferenced, also where someone died does not make that place notable. There is only one source. This is not a neighborhood. Regardless of the sockpuppet accusations this nomination is in good faith and was suggested to me by another editor.Icamepica (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced it. Who? Wikidemo (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to my comment [16] from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress Village, Oakland, California, I guess. cab (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I agree with the general sentiment that it should probably be merged somewhere but that this outcome would be better as a calm group editing decision instead of an edict from a problematic AfD. Wikidemo (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is clear, article should be expanded, but that can happen in time. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close until investigation is concluded. No discrimination against renomination later. 23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this indicates that the house where Newton died on 1454 9th Street was near but not actually part of the Acorn Housing Project, but since this is an article about the neighborhood, that would seem to apply. Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC). I would add that there are about 40 articles about neighborhoods in Oakland, California, which is its own category. Most of these, not surprisingly, are stubs. My preference would be that these should be consolidated into one article called "Neighborhoods of Oakland, California", but it appears that there's a policy in favor of keeping separate articles. I'd add that the Acorn project seems to have more people than a lot of small towns that have articles. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with West Oakland article; Acorn, Dogtown, Ghost Town, Cypress, etc., are all too microscopic in size and in stature to be considered real "neighborhoods". West Oakland is a recognized division of the city. All of these micro-articles and stubs should be subsumed into the West Oakland article. This would also automatically avoid a lot of the disputes over marginal material being included in these articles. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per 23skidoo. Wait for the socks to be blocked, then we can start a serious discussion. Bash Kash (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford and SPEEDY CLOSE due to the confirmed sockpuppet infestation regarding this and related nominations. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:36, 2 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 no consensus, which defaults to keep, with no prejudice against re-nomination. Arguments both to keep and delete have been advanced by Wikipedians in good standing. Given that at least two respondents have elected not to discuss the merits of the article under the circumstances of its nomination and that any future debate here will potentially be tainted by the history of the nominator, it seems most prudent to draw this debate to a close and allow it to be renominated if users believe the article fails inclusion standards. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Village Court, Oakland, California

Campbell Village Court, Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable housing project, formatted as a neighborhood which it is not. Mini-stub. Merge any useful content with West Oakland, Oakland, California if which i see none. Icamepica (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Delete Non-notable. Izzy007 Talk 23:13, 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 --slakr\ talk / 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staine

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

Hoax. Deleted yesterday per G3 as hoax/vandalism. Author repeatedly removing CSD tag. Reported as vandal active after block. DarkAudit (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted while TW was processing the page for attaching the template and author indef blocked. DarkAudit (talk) 07:05, 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. Fram (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generic tabletop game

Generic tabletop game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a nonnotable game, WP:MADEUP, also unreferenced Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:40, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon Dubbed Fandubs

Sailor Moon Dubbed Fandubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, article consists primarily of a list. Aseld talk 06:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbob.C. (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I made this page, I don't think it should be deleted, This is not self promotion, since it isn't me. It contains good, news about very good and popular Fandubber who i think deserves a Wiki Page. I'm going to add More And More information up, so that it won't get Deleted, I Know this is good stuff and i hope it doesn't get deleted.[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 23:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KTLA logo history

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

This article includes non-free images which are either duplicated, both here and in another article, or whose use in relation to the subject cannot be verified. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they are non-free (being logos of a currently-operational television station), however, they can be verified as KTLA's logos. I know that some do look similar, but they are not the same thing. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:20, 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 keep per demonstrated notability and further improvements to the article since the start of this discussion. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 02:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Okubo

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

No way to verify any claims, no sources, and vaguely notable. Tiptoety talk 05:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Maybe my investigating before i nominated did not come up with all of the sources that are out there. If you would not mind providing those sources, it would be greatly appreciated. Tiptoety talk 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are already plenty of links in this discussion that verify he is the author of the works mentioned in the article. With respect, it doesn't appear that you have done any "investigating". PC78 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Computer animation runs closely with Animation and Manga drawing, articles may refer to the same person. I can't be sure since I cannot read Japanese. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. Doceirias (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Of Soul Eater presumably? Have links to support that there will be anime adaptation? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[22] - The Official Anime website?Doceirias (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hey, would you look at that. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the notability of the person, not the manga. Tiptoety talk 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Authorship of a notable manga means the author himself is notable; this is the standard means of determining notability across the project. Doceirias (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoety. Well, Yeah. That's pretty well understood. We're discussing his works for which he is notable. It would seem if an persons creation was syndicated, and then adapted for television airing and it featured some big names like T.M.Revolution for opening theme, that it's likely he is notable. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- This is the author of a notable work in the manga genre. Good references in the article, but they could be improved by incorporating the references brought forth here and in the article on Soul Eater. The article asserted the subject's notability, the references and wikilinks bore it out. Why was this article sent to AfD? And why was a redirect to this article tagged under WP:CSD#R1 before this article was even deleted? This isn't adding up. --SSBohio 01:58, 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. faithless (speak) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluessential

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

Asserts enough notability to avoid a speedy and isn't quite spammy enough, but I cannot verify the 'reviews' included and refining a general search doesn't turn up anything either. No evidence they pass any aspect of WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:41, 26 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, jonny-mt 03:00, 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. Fram (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bornholm official football team

Bornholm official football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An amateur football team that doesn't appear to have any notability TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:34, 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. Fram (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powtils

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

Website that does not meet our criteria for notability of websites. Does not have any independent, published sources that would allow readers to verify the information contained in the article. Disputed proposed deletion so bringing here for discussion. Gwernol 05:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research Please

Use your fingers and a tool called Google Gwernol. You marked the page for deletion within 20 seconds while I was creating and updating it, which means mathematically that it was impossible for you to have done appropriate research before your nomination. Powtils has several third party verifiable sources as listed in the external links, including SourceForge, Google Code, Freepascal Wiki, Lazarus Wiki, Z505. If you look further you will find PasForum, PasWiki, Simple-Wiki, Simple-CMS, Code Pastie, and several other websites discussing Powtils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LFiveZeroFive (talk • contribs)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The problem is none of the external links are independent, published sources. Such a source would be something like an article in a newspaper or on a reputable website. Notability is established by other people writing about you, not by the fact of your project existing on Sourceforge or Google Code. For the purposes of Wikipedia these are not reliable sources. Please read our guidelines on notability of web sites and our policy on verifiability. By the way, I nominated the article for deletion 20 minutes after it was created, not 20 seconds. Thanks, Gwernol 05:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Bullshit, this feels very like envy... The stated reason for deletion is "The issue is not whether Powtils exists, but whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for the notability of web pages."

Unfortunately for this envious low life form, powutils is not a webpage, it is a PROGRAMMING TOOLSET.

"It appears to me that it does not, since there is no evidence that Powtils has been the subject of multiple, independent, published articles. I have opened it to the community to discuss whether it should be deleted."

This is a tautology. The project will be deleted because it doesnt received "suficient" (In who´s sense ?) review, but, if important webpages (Like sourceforge, wikipedia, etc) keeps denying the possibility for exposure, how can it be known and reviewed ? Its a tautology.

AND, being very sincere, who, from those envious detractors, is a real life programmer ?

Because i dont feel that some guys from other academic areas are really suposed to judge the usefullness of a programming tool...

13:30, 28 February 2008 (BRZ-East) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.92.164 (talk • contribs)

  • Actually, I'm a real life programmer, not that this is particularly relevant. The issue is whether the article meets the standards of Wikipedia, so the necessary knowledge if Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is not a place where software is promoted to achieve notability. It is an encyclopedia which records subjects after they become notable. If Powtils is as strong a package as you claim, then it will achieve notability on its own, and Wikipedia can then have an article about it. Until then, we won't. This is not a matter of "envy", this is a matter of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you start by reviewing our core policies, then go on to read our guidelines on notability, which will give you greater background on these issues. Thanks, Gwernol 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also note that from comments on User talk:189.70.92.164, it is highly likely that this IP is also User:LFiveZeroFive Gwernol 16:40, 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Alldredge

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

This is rather funny, and I would like for it to survive, but I can't seem to find any information on it that would justify WP:Bio inclusion in Wikipedia other than blogs & such. Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment He's a cutie, and I love the hat. As much as I'd LOVE to see his pretty face continue to grace the pages of Wikipedia, I'm affraid I just can't find a reason to justify it. Dgf32 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wish I could vote otherwise on this too. Someone go find some notable external links quick! Alberon (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I had closed this AfD as a delete, but then noticed that the AfD tag had been removed from the article already on the 26th of February (not by any of the above people). Since this would make the AfD nearly invisible for those people interested in the article, this may have resulted in an unfair result (though I doubt it, in all fairness). I would suggest leaving this AfD open for another four or five days, just to play it safe. Fram (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article does need improvement, citations of newspaper articles have been added. They are reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the subject. Dgf32 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the two newspaper articles are from the same paper and the same columnist. If some alternate source can be cited in addition, I'd be willing to reverse my delete nomination. What has been presented is not enough to show more than 5 minutes of fame-- much less fame than most failed mayorial candidates usually generate--many of whom are not regarded as notable enough for an encyclopedia article themselves.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Funny as it may be, there's no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. He is not a major political figure, but a failed candidate (non-notable per WP:BIO lacking other criteria.) He is not an ambassador. If this person's notability should gain legs beyond one columnist in two editorials in one paper in a single month, he may achieve notability. Not there yet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional sources added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.202.85 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those sources don't seem to indicate that the individual is notable by Wikipedia's definitions. Note that "a short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note You have only produced two sources by the same author, Greg Campbell; the two more recent articles are near identical mirrors of the previous two, also by the same author. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted per Fram. Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:48, 4 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 Redirect to Scooter (stand-up), this meets both the delete and redirect suggestions, as well as provide a useful link to the Wikipedia material on Evo Powerboards for any reader. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evo Powerboards

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

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:30, 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, SorryGuy  Talk  00:00, 18 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, Djsasso (talk) 05:04, 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 merge into Bratz Babyz. KrakatoaKatie 03:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz Babyz: The Movie

Bratz Babyz: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This direct- to- DVD movie doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) as the only RS coverage is trivial and a google search is mainly product listings. No reviews, no major awards, not a significant work. Appears entirely non-notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:48, 26 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, TerriersFan (talk) 02:56, 4 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 Keep per improvements in the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dwire

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

Thoroughly non-notable individual on his own, the third husband of Bill Clinton's mother. The article has scratches of information that we would never consider encyclopedic for people who are not tangently related to a famous person, and does not have enough content to be balanced in a way that is required to be NPOV. As he is deceased, and nothing has been written about him aside from being mentioned (like every other minor family member, business associate, neighbor, friend of the family and casual acquaintance) in Bill's book; we will likley never get the kind of balancing encyclopedic content that would be needed to make this article acceptable. Of course, it would likely still not be notable then, either. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in herited. Being "mentioned in" does not count. The sources have to be "about" him. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cnn source about the family bio is just that, a family bio. I don't see anything in any of the sources that constitute notability for Jeff. Undeath (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything in deletion votes that mock a historical figure ("Slick Willy" and "Bubba") as academic or serious rationales for removing information about a relative of that subject that obviously some editor thought worthy enough to create an article for. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I and many others believe that notability can be inherited (hence the link, so it's clear that it's not just my take). A stepfather of a president, whose wife is currently running for president, is a potential subject that researchers will be interested in reading about. I'll see if I can find additional sources. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Bubba" and "Slick willy" are nicknames for Bill Clinton. There is nothing bad about stating the names. It would have been a different story if Bill's article was up for deletion, in which the nicknames would be in bad taste. Undeath (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are critical nicknames of him, which suggest a dislike of him and could be perceived as a reason to want articles associated with him removed rather than a legitimate policy based reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say they are critical, I say they are funny. Just wondering, how is "bubba" critical? Undeath (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Critical or funny...they are not serious and weaken arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we can cull enough information from various sources to write a reasonably informative article, then it shouldn't matter if he hasn't been the primary subject of any particular source. He was the president's stepfather, not some random schmuck, and it's very likely someone could want this information. Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as creator: Significant figure in two notable biographies: [29], My Life (Bill Clinton autobiography); frequent mentions in news and books, including giving advice to both Clinton politicians, e.g. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]; note that the mother's name is often emphasized as "Virginia Cassidy Blythe Clinton Dwire Kelley" (esp. by Hillary Clinton, e.g., [40]) and the current article provides additional info. on the reason for a part of that lengthy sequence. JJL (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • JJL, I strongly urge you to incoporate some of these references into the article. I added a few myself, but the above references could help. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Those articles still do not assert notabiliy. The car link is the stangest one to me. How does a car make someone notable? He didn't invent it. Also, just because Virginia included his name into hers does not make him notable. The sources given do not write directly about him. They give passing information about what he did and who he was, but none of them make him notable under the guidelines. Undeath (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Appearance in multiple sources demonstrates notability and if his car played a major role in a presidential election for a security council, nuclear armed, G8 country and is even on museum display, it's worth noting and an article can be built from these sources. The article prior to nomination had problems that I believe Jerry reasonably expressed in his nomination, but since nomination and in the course of but minutes, the article has expanded with additional references and information. Let's give JJL a chance to use those other references he pointed to above to see if he can improve the article even further and I would have to say that in a worse case scenario information should at least be merged and the article redirected without deleting as someone reading the books may want to learn more about this man and come to our site doing a search. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. From the comments above and article references this article scrapes through the WP:Notability criteria. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale expressed by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the material available collectively satisfies our biography guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability isn't biggest or best, its noted by the media, and having all the facts come from reliable multiple sources. This meets the test. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability has now been clearly established. As a general rule of thumb, US Presidential Biography is a subject of interest to many academics, journalists, political observers. As such, there's an extremely high probability that the parents of presidents will have multiple independent reliable sources that have detailed their lives and in fact, multiple texts have been written on the significance of presidential families, etc. The second-guessing of reliable sources, with regards to presidential relatives, reflects badly on the project. It makes us look ridiculous to people interested in this subject matter. When we can be nearly guaranteed that multiple, independent reliable sources exist, it is best to tag for clean-up (or quickly find the sources yourself) rather than send to AFD. --JayHenry (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JayHenry, with whom I could not agree more. Subject is overwhelmingly worthy of encyclopedic note, and we do our readers a huge disservice to second guess them in this way. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:46, 2 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Brown (martial arts instructor)

Terry Brown (martial arts instructor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The book exists with a 72,000+ ranking at Amazon and they charge a sourcing fee, which means they don't have ready access and a search with his name and title don't turn up any notability. The company's website doesn't work (cache here) and searching for his name in connection with the company turns up 38 (it goes down from 150 when you get to p4) pages of nothing. He doesn't pass WP:BIO, nn instructor of a nn company. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:41, 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 Deleted and salted --Stephen 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...Shovelhead!

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

Non-notable comedy troupe. This article has been speedy deleted four times by three different admins, and the COI editor has been blocked once for repeatedly recreating it. Corvus cornixtalk 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. -- Longhair\talk 10:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bronte O'Brien

AfDs for this article:
Bronte O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax or fantasy. No Ghits on "Bronte O'Brien" and "Dolly Magazine". Grahame (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 delete. Wizardman 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forum for Elite Students of Cost Accounting

Forum for Elite Students of Cost Accounting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is a social club at a university, and is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (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 Delete per WP:BLP1E. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Luther Hadnott

Tyrone Luther Hadnott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I helped created this article, but now I wonder if it is just news, or if it is still notable after it has left the news. What does the community think? Keep or Delete? ChetblongT C 02:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I brought this article to AFD, it was not because it is/was a libelous BLP. It is in fact sourced to verify these claims and there are many more sources that could be found to verify the statements made in the article. Therefore it does not qualify for speedy deletion as you have stated. A quick Google News search shows that the article is verified. --ChetblongT C 05:14, 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. Wizardman 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mims' second studio album

Mims' second studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Even though there were some sources of the upcoming album, it fails WP:MUSIC. Like the deletion of the article II Trill, the album is not as much sourced. Dunno if the sources make it notable because they're just forum threads. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted because the album will be released in June and there are plenty of sources to back that up and plus the album isn't out yet how do you expect a tracklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 22:16, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meeresforschung

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

This was originally listed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biometrics (Journal) which has closed as I withdrew the nom, however this journal still establishes zero notability, nor does a search in any language. This is nothing more than a directory listing. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No content in article worth keeping. Subject itself lacks notability. Dgf32 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was a peer-reviewed scientific journal that was published under this name for 18 years. In my opinion, that makes it inherently notable. It is hard to search correctly for scientific references to it, because its official abbreviation is Meeresforchung, which is a common word in German. However, even the combination Meeresforschung "Reports on marine research", which reaches libraries and databases that include the journal, scores 961 Google hits. --mglg(talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I added a third-party published reference from 1925 describing the early history of the journal. From Google translate, the first paragraph describes how it ceased operations during World War I but then resumed. But it would take someone who actually reads German to extract more useful information from it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The great majority of long-standing peer-reviewed academic journals are inherently notable as they publish research which is abstracted in indexes and cited in other research, and they are themselves archived in academic libraries. It's best, however, that a journal has only a single article with redirects for all name changes, but in this case the red-linked alternative titles do not yet exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and moved it to the current name of the journal. Probably best not to create too many redirects unless the AfD ends up a keep, though. I also cleaned up the text and got rid of several of the links that were labeled as sources, as they are not different than what you get anyway from the ISSN. We still need actual sources (primary, secondary, whatever) for most of the history; the only one I have is from very early. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good Idea if people look for this journal, it's far more likely they'd look under the current name rather than the 60s name and this way the re-direct will get them there if someone is pining for their old school days. I agree, we still need actual sources for notability and/or to establish some context TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I found several articles elsewhere in Wikipedia that cite this journal, under some of its names. So the present article serves an encyclopedic purpose in helping readers of those other articles verify the reliability of those citations, and helping them untangle the relationship between all these journal names. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am persuaded by the arguments that peer-reviewed academic journals have inherent notability, particularly, as mglg, given a run of 18 years. I also take David Eppstein's point about the usefulness of the article in relation to serving WP:V in articles that cite to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Adventure (series)

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

Article fails WP:FICT, is full of unnecessary plot summaries, and regurgitates information that can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia Redphoenix526 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also most of the games on the list are not even part of that series. --76.66.190.62 (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Just because it is a poorly written article does not mean the subject itself shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. It needs a lot of work but anything within the subject can be easily verified. Anonymous contributor is right to say that many of these games aren't even part of the series, but that is an easy fix. Instead of nominating it for deletion, you should have attempted to clean it up. Hazillow (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Hazillow. The article should clearly be revamped and that would take quite a bit of work but it should be tagged as such instead of tagging for deletion.--Ubardak (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not the poor writing that's the problem here, it's the fact that it is a regurgitation of articles that already have their own subjects. As I can see it, no amount of work can keep it from regurgitating information that is elsewhere on Wikipedia. If it could, I would try to save it myself, but that's not the case here. Redphoenix526 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Sonic Adventure (Series)' doesn't seem to be a notable term. The article's viability depends on all these games being commonly refered to (by third party sources ofc) under this term. If this can indeed be easily verified (it seems to me it can't), I'd like to actually see it done. The content of the article is redundant: the games all have main articles. There's nothing but plot content (see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT). Bridies (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs pruning and cleanup. I see trivia, weasel-wording, and speculation, which obviously doesn't belong. That said, it is possible to do an article like this right, see Metal Gear (series) as a much better (though not perfect) example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metal Gear series is an obviously recognisable series though. As Crotalus points out below, 'sonic adventure series' seems to be arbitrary and OR. Bridies (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - I've had a hand in that article, but I really can't do anything for it (I did have a plan, but it just didn't work out), I just gave up the ghost on it and hoped that some kind soul would pass by and delete it!  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:29, 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 —αlεx•mullεr 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twin City Arts Festival

Twin City Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An arts festival that is not notable, unsourced and blatant advertising. A prod was removed a few weeks ago hence it is here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 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 Merge/redirect to Dawson College. I will merge - please insert further encyclopedic facts at the target article. Black Kite 09:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant (newspaper)

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

Disputed prod. A non-notable student newspaper (a Quebecois CEGEP is somewhere between the last year of high school and the first year of university in other locales) with no references or sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually got several hits searching the name and the college. Not saying that the hits make it notable, but it certainly does get google hits. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here is really on notability (which can't be fixed), not the quality of the article (which can be fixed). Are you saying the subject is notable if someone copyedited the article? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student newspapers are virtually never notable, and this is certainly not an exception. The article is dreadful and appears to have been written by someone with no concept of what an encyclopedia is or contains: for example, it lists where and when they meet, as though it were a flyer on a bulletin-board. Even if cleaned up, wouldn't be notable whatsoever anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Category:Student newspapers, you'll see that there are a lot of Wikipedia articles on student newspapers. I normally don't subscribe to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in AfD discussions, but the existence of so many other articles respecting student newspapers suggests that your statement ("student newspapers are virtually never notable") is not accurate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some articles on community college (the best equivalent to CEGEPs in the rest of Canada) newspapers in Canada, including The Dialog, The Capilano Courier and The Other Press. The existence of those articles does not mean this one if notable, of course, but it does mean that the lack of college papers in Category:Student newspapers published in Quebec is probably not an indicia of lack of notability. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 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, not-notable neologism --Stephen 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single serving sites

Single serving sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable: definition of days-old neologism; not covered anywhere except a popular blog and a few less-popular ones. I proposed the article for deletion, but the tag was removed. There is significant discussion of this on its talk page already. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:29, 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.

Laterose

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete as non-notable. Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laterose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft. This is a fictional character in a series of books, having no real-world notability. No encyclopedic content. The article is written as in-universe style, is solely plot summary, and is original research. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Maybe semi-notable within the Redwall universe, but unfortunately, this character has absolutely no out-of-universe notability whatsoever. This is purely a plot summary and original research. (What is it about fantasy series that they attract cruft like iron filings to a magnet, anyway?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
possibly that WP people find them notable? DGG (talk) 01:06, 27 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, Black Kite 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Martin the Warrior, which already mentions Laterose. This is basically just an unnecessarily detailed plot summary of the book. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that this is an example of how to not write an article about a character is a separate issue from whether it is appropriate to have one. Whether it should go be merged into he article for the book or stay separate is a matte of style; to avoid repetition, it might perhaps go with the book. DGG (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G12 separately from this process as a blatant copyright violation. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Miller

Robert H. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Some CoI risk too - the main editor of the page has a user name similar to the subject of the article. AndrewHowse (talk) 01:23, 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. John254 00:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was PROD-tagged. Listing at AfD to gain consensus. EJF (talk) 21:31, 18 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 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable product, plenty of professional reviews. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew. Hazillow (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable product, plenty to source it out there. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added multiple references, including several from professional review sites, as mentioned by Andrew. I also added that the camera was awarded Editor's Choice by PC Magazine in 2006. Granted that this is not the ground breaking digital camera that the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 is, but it has sufficient sources to establish notability. And it does use the legendary and famous German Leica lens, as does many in the Panasonic Lumix series of digital cameras. The article could use some improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. — Becksguy (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Lumix which has a list of the cameras in this product line, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W30 to Cyber-shot. Just because the vendor sent out a press release when the particular model was released, and several magazines, websites or blogs printed pro-forma reviews, we do not need a separate article for every model in a product line, each of which is quickly superseded by the next model with slightly different features. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article. The main article can appropriately discuss the Lumix line of cameras. Edison (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Cyber-Shot merge looks like a pretty bad idea. It's a HUGE range of many types of cameras over many years, many of them sharing virtually no features, from the semi-professional 717 and 828 to the tiny and bizarre U-series novelty cameras. Worst of all, in the attempt to cover a lot of stuff in one article, there's virtually no information in there about any of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To characterize the camera reviews as "pro-forma" and based on press releases is incorrect and does a disservice to professional testing and review sites, and to Wikipedia. There are several independent camera technical testing labs that publish full signed reviews with tons of technical data. Reviews from mainstream newspapers don't go into that kind of detailed testing. Also, I didn't use any blogs in the references. And for those products in any company's product line that are notable, yes, we do need articles on them. Notable like this camera, now with two awards and multiple reviews. And I agree with Andrew on merging as a bad idea. — Becksguy (talk) 17:48, 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 Non-notable mall --Stephen 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Centre Mall

Scottsdale Centre Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not include anything that could constitute notability. I have searched on Google news, with zero hits here and little in a web search here (an identity theft incident following a theft from a McDonald's Express doesn't do it). Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:09, 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 Non-notable, Google-only terminology. --Stephen 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR0

PR0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. All the encyclopedia information in here is inlcuded in Pagerank RogueNinjatalk 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I have added references and done a cleanup. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didnt argue for deletion based on the fact that its not referenced or clean. Its just not a notable term. RogueNinjatalk 23:40, 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 --Stephen 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezina LeBlanc

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

I can't find any reliable external sources. You'd think that if she was recognized internationally, there would at least be some coverage about her. All I can find is her personal webpage and her Cafepress page. Soxred93 | talk bot 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more Google hits under Ezina Moore. I looked at this earlier today, the article is obviously copied from somewhere else on Wikipedia, but I can't find where. I asked the article's creator (User:Ezinam) if she had copied it from somewhere, but she hasn't replied. There need to be reliable sources, anyway. I'm withholding a !vote for now, depending on how the editor responds. Corvus cornixtalk 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. So you can probably tell that I am new to this world of adding entries to wikipedia, but I am not new to Ezina LeBlanc (nee Ezina Moore). If you check out the pages of Miss Black USA, you will see that she is indeed listed as the recipient of that title [53]. A more thorough search will find that the other references on this page are all legit as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.133 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's how I found out the Ezina Moore name. But I'm still withholding judgement until you explain where this article's text was copied from. Corvus cornixtalk 19:08, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis

AfDs for this article:
Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject "fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" as the article shows no evidence that the topic is notable per WP:MUSIC which states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines.", WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no evidence of such coverage within the article. Guest9999 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Support if.. Hello. I have submitted this article for a peer review and a second is in the process, I am however considering "merging" the articles into one article, as suggested by User:Ruhrfisch at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis/archive2 but I am waiting for an example of such an article, if you could provide me with one I may be somewhat supportive of this, only if I like the outcome. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article shows no evidence of its notability in line with WP:MUSIC. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Cloudz679, can you please find an example of an article with several albums and EPs on it? If so I may become supportive in the deletion of this article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:21, 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or redirect to Harry and the Potters discography. As per the music notability guideline which states that "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. It's technically not an album per se and there hasn't been a lot of media coverage, so it might not have enough notability to merit an actual article. If so, then a redirect should be sufficient enough.--TBC!?! 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Guest9999 (talk) 17:16, 2 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 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mahmoodi

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

I cannot find anything to verify the contents of the article. Nor anything to prove that it is notable. BlackDiamonds (talk) 00:46, 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 Withdrawn with no support for deletion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vrysochori

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

This church does not seem to be notable. Contested prod. Captain panda 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC) As this article appears not in fact be about a church and is instead about a town, there is no reason for me to want it deleted. Captain panda 03:42, 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 Redirect to Martin the Warrior. Davewild (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keyla

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

This character doesn't seem to be notable. Delete or merge it to some kind of Redwall article. Captain panda 00:25, 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. Wizardman 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Positive (album)

Stay Positive (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The title of this album is unknown. The PROD I placed was removed because "references already exist on Wikipedia" - true. They point to a source ([55], which states "it will probably be called Stay Positive " (bold my emphasis)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, this should really wait until the album is actually released, or at least the title is formally confirmed in reliable secondary sources. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting that the above is the original author of the article - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:39, 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 merge. There is clear consensus in this debate that this article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards, though there is some divergence in opinion as to how best to handle it. For GFDL compliance, the article cannot be deleted now unless some of the text and history at Numerology is also deleted, as material from it was merged there on February 26. It could be history merged with that article, but there is considered opinion expressed below that it should exist as a redirect, if some disagreement as to what article is its best destination. On closure of this AfD, it will be redirected to Numerology and placed in Category:Redirects from merges. I do not feel that refashioning it as a disambiguation page adding other potential targets would violate the consensus of this AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Numerology

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

Appears to be an original research synthesis. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus, article has not been improved since, perhaps consensus can be reached this time. Shirahadasha (talk) 03:39, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_26&oldid=194200883"