The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW, WP:NOT for essays. -- Salix alba ( talk) 08:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

ENERGIA EOLICA - LA OTRA CARA

ENERGIA EOLICA - LA OTRA CARA (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Contested PROD. Blatant opinion piece. Belongs on the editorial page of a newspaper, not in an encyclopedia. Delete. Blanchardb- ^{Me• MyEars• MyMouth}-timed 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as personal essay, entirely lacking in context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not encyclopedic even in the slightest sense. Kakofonous ( talk) 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete not an article. JuJube ( talk) 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I translated it from Spanish. And I think I've done good work, because I've seen it is an opinion. HARD DELETE! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 09:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as an essay -- Whpq ( talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Keilana as CSD G7, author request. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Todd Karr

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

Biography of a magician and publisher written by user:Toddkarr. Is he noatable? -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete The creator, Toddkarr, just blanked the page, and in the edit summary, requested that it be deleted.-- Nkrosse ( talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per creator request. Pairadox ( talk) 02:24, 8 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. Addhoc ( talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Marcel Vezina

A local politician with no significant news coverage thereby failing the standard set by WP:BIO. Was prodded but the tag was removed. Indrian ( talk) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No significant news coverage??? well how about "the internet was not fully expanded", when he was in power. Furthermore, abundance of articles exist on microfiche about Marcel Vezina, Journal de Montreal, Nouvelliste, Journal De Quebec, Lapresse, but not on the net. I contacted a newspaper person in TRois Rivieres, and was told that any circulation news prior 5-6yrs ago, is not posted on the net anymore but relinquished to the microfiche.

Furthermore, the city of Shawingan -Sud, has merged other local cities in 2001., hence all websites maintained by the city of Shawinigan-sud, (which would provide many sources) have been put down and/or removed from the web. This doe not automatically dismiss

I'm not sure how to "link" paper article/microfiche to this wiki page!!!??? Can anyone please help? I'm fairly new at this Wiki posting. Wikimike123 ( talk) 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Yeah, but what kind of news coverage was it? Any mayor is going to be mentioned in the local paper because he is in charge of the town. Did he get national news coverage for doing something particularly innovative or something particualrly rotten? Indrian ( talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• delete a personal page, no sources Logastellus ( talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

again instead of disputing that there is no sources (because its not on the net), how do you bring to the net any national article that are on microfiche but not on the net?? There was many regional and national newspaper article that covered his exploits. Wikimike123 ( talk) 8:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTCOMES, mayors of major cities are usually kept on Wikipedia, but mayors of smaller cities and towns are kept only if additional notability can be shown beyond the fact that they served as a mayor. Shawinigan-Sud, which had a population of just 11,804 in 1996 according to the article on Shawinigan, falls within the latter category. Delete unless additional notability can be shown. Bearcat ( talk) 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• COMMENTto the author: I have cleaned up the article (cosmetically). The subject still needs to have notability. Find references (in English...this is the Englsih Wiki) and third-party citations of notability and I will find a suitable place to put it.-- Sallicio ^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete with encouraging note at Wikimike's talk. Franamax ( talk) 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete No notability established. Being former mayor of a small town is not enough. -- L. Pistachio ( talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Spygate

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

This article functions as a POV fork for an issue already sufficiently addressed in the article 2007 New England Patriots season. It functions as a sink for criticism of the team over a relatively minor incident that is sufficiently covered in the main article. This article is not necessary. Eleven Special ( talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Also covered in article Bill Belichick. Eleven Special ( talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Hmm....I don't think this should be "swept under the rug". It's a good article, and it details the incident much better than the entry in the season article. As a major issue involving cheating in the NFL, I'd say this merits inclusion. Mastrchf91 ( ^t/ _c) 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• speedy keep - This just survived an AfD under the name Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spygate_incident_(American_football) less than two weeks ago. The article must have been moved and renominated. Torc2 ( talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It was all over the news, and now Goodell will testify before the Senate. As much as the hurt Patriot fans would like it to go away, Spygate is about to expand. There is no reason to delete, no exclude it from the "Culture" section of the Patriots template. Zeality ( talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Look at the references—clearly this article has enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Kakofonous ( talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment The last two sentances make me question, is this a WP:POINT nomination? This article is not necessary if we wish to bury truth and justice. seems like someone has another motive. Forgive me if i'm mistaken. (Full disclosure I voted delete on the first AFD, but I understand conensus went the other way and I respect the community's choice.)-- Cube lurker ( talk) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I noticed that too after voting. Seems like a bad joke. Torc2 ( talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • My original nomination text was maliciously vandalized by an anon before anyone else commented. [3] I've restored my original text. Eleven Special ( talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That explains it. Didn't think to check the history.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Appears to be notable independently of the single season in which it occurred. Maxa megalon 2000 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep per discussion two weeks ago. You can't just nominate and nominate and nominate until you get the result you want. I'm surprised this was even discussed once...much less twice. -- Smashville ^BONK! 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Typically notice is posted on the talk page that the article was reviewed under AfD. There is no template there and I was unaware of the previous AfD discussion. If there was I probably would not have nominated it a second time. While I still stand by my position that I feel this article on this topic is redundant due to the topic's inclusion in two other articles, and only serves as a sink for negative criticism and bashers of the New England Patriots, I would not oppose an admin speedy closing this. Eleven Special ( talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I apologize...my response definitely wasn't too WP:CIVIL...which is why you don't get on WP first thing in the morning after sitting up most of the night with tornado warnings...but I stand by the speedy close... -- Smashville ^BONK! 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Although I originally wrote this article, I do not see any anti-Patriots POV. I think the article is well-sourced, and it also presents an overview of the Jets' involvement. Please offer proof that this article is a "sink for criticism" of the New England Patriots. I will make necessary changes, but I do not think this article should be deleted. Spygate is noteworthy; the Patriots were not the only team involved in the scandal. By the way, your characterization of Spygate as "relatively minor" is definitely POV: it is not supported by the facts. I'm not against the Patriots, but this incident has become exceptionally notable in sports and the NFL. CVW ( Talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You may consider the opinion that the incident was relatively minor as POV, but when weighing the worthyness of an article it is perfectly acceptable to express your POV. In defense of my view I have to ask: have there been any major changes to the way the NFL does business or conducts its rules because of this incident? Would it be on par with other sports incidents like the Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens doping scandals? Or the Black Sox scandal? I think the attention this has gotten in the media is out of proportion with the consequences of the actual event. If there are Congressional hearings on this matter and there are overarching rule changes or laws enacted, then I would say that there would be a place for a separate article. But just because the sports media and bloggers get hot and bothered about something doesn't mean that we have to regurgitate it in the encyclopedia. As for a rationale for deletion, there was already consensus on avoiding "Criticism of X" articles. IMO, this article is just another version of that beast. Eleven Special ( talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Not going to rehash what went on in the previous AfD. However, I can see where the nominator is coming from. This article was originally created to centralize and expand information dealing with the specific instance. But when every Tom, Dick, and Harry weighs in on this article with a published quote, and when other "rumors" and "development" of varying substance gets thrown in, it does become a "sink for criticism." If any prominent figure has something to say about this, it goes into this article. If there are more accusations, rumblings, and affects (i.e. opinion on what it means to legacies, etc.), it goes into this article. There is certainly a tendency for this article to drift away from encyclopedic into the realm of blog or message board, or "log" of opinions and rumors. Pats1 ^T/ C 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think this is significant enough a topic that it should be kept separate, especially because its timeline is sufficiently long enough not to be easily covered within the aforementioned 2007 New England Patriots season article, at least without losing some of the content. I agree that there are some POV issues, but the article and subject seem significant enough--especially given Congress' new interest in the matter--to warrant keeping the article. Kevin Smith ( talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Keep this page. Deleting this page would be like a member of the RNC deleting the Watergate page. Just stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.154.8 ( talk) 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) — 129.6.154.8 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep Article is valid and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.96.226 ( talk) 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — 96.226.96.226 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep but create a link in the Bill Belechick bio to a seperate chapter on "Spygate" linking to the page in question. NoseNuggets ( talk)10:51 AM US EST Feb 8 2008

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram ( talk) 10:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

1996 in Australian television

1996 in Australian television (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete; The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs. Even though an article, for the mere fact of it being a list, does not make it encyclopedic, it would depend on what the list is about.

Also, does the inclusion of a group of articles on the years in television history mean there will also be others about American television history by year? Mexican television by year? Russian television by year? And what events on television would be notable enough to include in the articles? Technically, anything that's past is historical, but would news be notable enough? If the Oscars are included, does that mean Premio Lo Nuestro is too due to the fact that is one of the most anticipated Spanish-speaking shows throughout the year by Latinos, though not by english speaking people, in the United States? Monkeytheboy ( talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke ( talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I don't watch television - not interested in television, ..... but articles of this type have precedent. The alternative would be to merge with year in Australia articles, which for the content in this article would be feasible, ie merge to 1996 in Australia and/or to 1996 in television - the latter I suspect is US biased and could be renamed 1996 in US television - I have no difficulty with articles on Mexican or Russian television. I note that 1996 in television is quite lengthy already.-- Matilda ^talk 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - 1966-67 United States network television schedule would seem to indicate that there are indeed articles about US television programming by year.-- Matilda ^talk 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am not sure in the nomination the point of the comment The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs. Red links and stubs are both OK on Wikipedia and neither are reasons to delete. Lists are also OK. Note that notability guidelines do not limit content of lists except when it comes to people - see WP:NNC. I have not been able to find a specific guidleline for television but there is a comprehensive wikiproject and perhaps they can shed more light.-- Matilda ^talk 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Matilda ^talk 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Some of these "19XX in Australian television" articles were deleted recently because they contained no content apart from the navbox and that's fair enough, however if there is sustainable content I see no reason to delete the article. As Matilda says, stubs and lists are fine and articles are not required to contain prose. If you look at the more recent articles such as 2007 in Australian television, you'll see that they are intended to be quite well-referenced listings of series debuts, endings and channel changes, as well as notable events in television. If someone wants to work on a Mexican television article, so be it, if not there's no need to delete articles people are willing and able to work on (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). -- Canley ( talk) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge While 2007 in Australian television may generate sufficient interest and content due to its recency, it's harder to imagine that either of say 1981 in Australian television or 1982 in Australian television would progress much beyond stubs. This suggests perhaps Australian television in the 1980s might be a more sensible aggregation, with similar articles for the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or even the 1990s. Murtoa ( talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I, along with Allied45 have been working on both 2007 in Australian television and 2008 in Australian television with the intent of creating an entire series of articles right back to 1956 when television was first broadcast in Australia. We are still deciding on the format, structure and content before completely rolling these out. The reason for these articles, as correctly pointed out by Matilda above, is the Year in television articles are in essence Year in Amercian television. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I should also point out that to supplement the main Year in Australian television articles, there are also Category:Year in Australian television, Category:Year Australian television series debuts and Category:Year Australian television series endings. So for last year, there is Category:2007 in Australian television, Category:2007 Australian television series debuts and Category:2007 Australian television series endings. These have all been created and I am in the process of populating these categories which well help me in forming the main articles. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As mentioned above, I have been working hard, alongside Ianblair23, to create a series of articles relating to Years in Australian television. Sure, this page hasn't took off yet, but it can be called a stub, and editors can have the oppurtunity to add what relevant content that they wish. I'll also like to point out that as well as 2007 in Australian television, there are also articles for Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. -- Allied45 ( talk) 09:25, 8 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Jenae Rubin

Jenae Rubin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Notability criteria not met. Appears to be advertising. Boson ( talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as spam / self-promotion -- Whpq ( talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I couldn't find anything suggesting she meets the notability criteria, and the article is certainly strongly promotional in tone.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:46, 12 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

James McDermott

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

The entry is redundant, since a McDermott disambiguation entry already exists. Users of Wikipedia who are looking for a McDermott without knowing for sure McDermott's first name should be able to also find the James McDermotts in the disambiguation page. If the McDermott entry is already too large, the entry for James McDermott in it could lead to a second disambiguation page, for James McDermotts only. But it's not helpful having two separate entries; we should not presume people always know exactly what they're looking for. The Gnome ( talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The situation described (having these listings at a two-name dab page and at the surname dab) is not unusual at all; have a glance at Category:Lists of ambiguous human names. I suppose many of the two-name dabs could be redirected to the surname dab, but that would be a major change in how we have handled these pages and I am not convinced that there is any strong advantage to changing the precedent. -- Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Paul Erik. Disambigs are cheap and there's absolutely no reason to get rid of this. The McDermott surname page is unusually large for a disambig right now and this presents an advantage to the user who only cares about those with the survey who are named James. Redfarmer ( talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• keep. When it comes to finding aids, redundancy is a good thing. -- Paularblaster ( talk) 22:59, 10 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, since it had no salvageable encyclopedic content. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Tarnished Gold

Tarnished Gold (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

It's nothing but a plot summary without any context. Travellingcari ( talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to V. C. Andrews#The Landry series per WP:FICT. Jfire ( talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article needs work but it is a notable book. Snowman ( talk) 17:31, 9 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. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Tenaga Sayaw

Tenaga Sayaw (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

A goofle search returns Wiki and lots of copies of the article's text, but no actual information about the art. Travellingcari ( talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because like the above, there's very little in any language that's not Wiki or a Wiki mirror.:

Tovak Kali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Travellingcari ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete if this were a kata by two countries, there would be more online mentions. I've never heard martial arts practice as Tenaga Sayaw here in the Philippines.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 22:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Even its version in WikiPilipinas questions its notability. Seems like it's a term used by a school of martial arts in Cavite (see here). Starczamora ( talk) 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab ( talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. cab ( talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn, 7 ghits excluding WP. JJL ( talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep for Tovak Kali which I see has been added since my comments...marginally adequate number of ghits though wholly unsourced. JJL ( talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete NN possible advert. -- Nate1481( ^t/ _c) 09:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete for Tovak Kali (the first one is for Tenaga Sayaw so I am not double voting), no hits on Philippine news, Google news, Google scholar, Google and Google books. Also notability seems to be confined in Cavite which means this hasn't spread nationwide yet.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 23:46, 6 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 WP:SNOW clear hoax. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Fletcher Field Strength

Fletcher Field Strength (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Suspected hoax. Google returns no hits. gb ^{( t, c)} 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Appears to be a hoax per total lack of hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If it is an SI unit but Google is silent, there is a fairly good chance that it is a hoax. Kakofonous ( talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube ( talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the claim is that it is an SI base unit which it is not since these are the SI base units. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete made up unit, given references in the article do not support the existence of the unit. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:16, 6 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. Any merge discussion should be taken to the talk page. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Online skill-based game

Online skill-based game (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Page is basically unreferenced, with misused references that don't establish notability. Should be deleted, or merged into Online gambling, or a mention of competing for money in the Game of skill article. Also concerned that this is just an excuse to pimp lots of online gaming sites, many of which are redlinked. Anitpatel ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Weak Merge with Online gambling. The actual industry term in common use is "Skill gaming", so the article is mis-named. The subject is notable enough for its own article, but the article as it stands now needs cleanup. Needing cleanup isn't a valid reason for deletion though. If we deleted every article that might be used to pimp other sites, we wouldn't have any articles left, so that's not a valid deltion reason either. Rray ( talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Do you have some references to support that? I think that's half the reason I haven't been able to find anything on this subject. A rename might make it easier to establish notability. But if no one can do that, we should delete or merge this article. Anitpatel ( talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
    • A Google search for "skill gaming" brings back almost 80,000 results, so references probably exist. (A Google News search only brings back 16 results though, but that's still a significant number for something that's "non-notable".) I don't have specific references to add, nor do I have the time at the moment to clean up the article myself. (The wife is away and I have to take care of three children tonight.) Rray ( talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
      • This also raises concerns about WP:neologism. That's one more reason this should be condensed to a quick mention in online gambling. Anitpatel ( talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Being a neologism isn't a reason for deletion either. Rray ( talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Case that this article is policy-noncompliant hasn't been made. Article could use cleanup but that's not a reason to AFD it. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Either Keep or Merge and Redirect into a separate section of Online game, which this is really just a fork of; the games are the same, only the chance to win money is different. Black Kite 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Much to great potential content to merge. No evidence of spam so far, though that wouldnt be reason to delete in any case, just to watchlist. DGG ( talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. — Gavin Collins ( talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, or merge. I agree this a non-notable fork from Online gambling, or possibly Game of skill, but since most of these games are driven by web based advertising, I would suggest the former is a better merge candidate. -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge topic seems to have the required minimum references for WP:N, but I share the nominator's concern about the article being used as a farm for redlinks. Percy Snoodle ( talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or Merge. Limited notability. Best fit with an article on online gambling. Ludologist12 ( talk) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge to a suitable article ( Online game would be my choice). One can find coverage which discusses "online games of skill" or specific instances thereof, but I'm not convinced the subject is discussed in sufficient generality to justify a separate article yet. -- Sturm 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, valid, referenced, verifiable, clearly separable topic. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep—references establish notability. Concerns about spam seem excessive. Spacepotato ( talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Consensus as of Feb 14:I still don't see how the advocates for "keeping" have established even one valid reference about "online skill-based games". There's one article from about.com that talks about competing for money online, but no explicit mention of the concept in this article. And another white paper about how to make money off of games, which I'm concerned isn't even a valid reference. The purpose of a white paper is (quote from wikipedia page) "designed to promote a specific company's solutions or products as it relates to the issue or topic examined". This is the epitome of WP:SPAM.
• These two references (one that doesn't mention the concept, and one that is not reliable) are not enough.
• Still, it looks like there is a decent consensus for a merge. People are split about deletion. But of the 11 contributors to this page, 7 would have stated they agree with a merge, and the remaining four don't appear to be against it. I understand this isn't a vote, but we may be able to extract a consensus here. A merge keep the information, and delete the "online skill-based game" article, which is a decent compromise. Anitpatel ( talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

  Contrary to your contention, the about.com reference is about the subject of this article. As for the white paper, any number of organizations, commercial and noncommercial, issue white papers. This one is from IGDA, a nonprofit industry association which the article does not promote in any way. Spacepotato ( talk) 18:49, 14 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: all verifiable geolocations are for wikipedia by common decision. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Justo daract

Justo daract (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Seems to be a small collection of facts and some headings. No article to speak of. Nv8200p talk 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Move to Justo Daract, Argentina and put a {{ cleanup}} tag on it (so tagged for cleanup). Google maps turns it up as a real location. Looks like an article that somebody started and never got around to finishing up. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, clean up and move to Justo Daract (I'm okay if Justo Daract, Argentina is preferred). All towns are notable and this one with thousands of people is quite sizable. -- Oakshade ( talk) 17:04, 6 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Massimiliano Tagliani

Massimiliano Tagliani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Youth player, not yet a professional Matthew_hk t c 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I also put them on AFD

Edoardo Pazzagli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alex Costa dos Santos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matthew_hk t c 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete All fail WP:FOOTY notability criteria and WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. Fail WP:BIO and unsourced to even suggest now otherwise. Peanut4 ( talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete all, all fail WP:FOOTY notability criteria, recreate when/if they ever make an appearance for the 1st team, King of the North East 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. All these football players could be appropriately listed there. TheYellowCabin ( talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• delete not notable Logastellus ( talk) 11:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not yet notable -- Dweller ( talk) 13:01, 7 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. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Woodworking for Women

Woodworking for Women (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Article has been discussed in an XfD discussion in 2005. No improvement since the last deletion discussion. Article tagged for speedy but only eligible for AfD. Procedural nomination. -- VS ^talk 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Article is stagnant, Magazine does not exist and the external link takes you to a craft site. Found this with a search - ceased publication with the October/November 2006 issue. I Agree with Deletion ♫Slysplace | ^talk 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete something nonverifiabe notability. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:39, 13 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED ( talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Salt Grammar School

Salt Grammar School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Speedy declined and the person removed some of the unencyclopedic content, however there is still nothing notable about this school. Travellingcari ( talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep School is a specialist school in Maths and Computing. Also has recently received The Sportsmark 2007/8 award. Paste ( talk) 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It is notable for being one of the few surviving grammar schools - there are only 164 grammar schools left in the whole of England. This one also has a history going back to the 1800s. Dahliarose ( talk) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment. After a few quick searches I've now discovered that Salt Grammar School is a historically important school. A whole book has been written about it which will be a valuable source for further expansion if anyone local has access to it. The school was founded by Sir Titus Salt as a factory school for the children of the model village of Saltaire which is now a World Heritage Site. Despite its name it no longer appears to be a grammar school.

• Keep - historic grammar school. Plenty of sources available from which the page can be expanded and which meet WP:N. TerriersFan ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I didn't think schools were inherently notable, even though Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is just a proposal. My nomination stemmed from the fact that I could find no evidence of 2nd party coverage that doesn't concern an event at the school. Travellingcari ( talk) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - events at the school are fine when covered in reliable sources. Even in your search there are several significant references which, taken with Dahliarose's research, incontrovertibly meet WP:N. TerriersFan ( talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment. For UK schools you should search on www.google.co.uk and confine the search to the UK. There are also UK-specific sources listed at WP Schools. A search at COPAC or Google Books would have told you about the published history. Dahliarose ( talk) 23:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Reply fair enough, but that wouldn't have helped much for news in this case. You guys have done a good job cleaning it up since I met it, I'll give you that. I'm curious what these UK-specific sources are is this the schools proposal you're speaking of? I'd obviously not have nominated it if I thought it met the criteria. I'm probably missing what defines it as notable Travellingcari ( talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

That's very odd. I'm getting pages and pages of results here. There are lots of source links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Any school of this age will inevitably have plenty of sources available, even if they're not online. Dahliarose ( talk) 09:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Web v. Google News, got the difference now. I default to News first in order to directly find ~60-80%% (depending on article subject) of the reliable sources for most articles. When nothing shows in a local/national/int'l newspaper, then I trifle more in Web searches for something that might pass for reliable. I know the sources in Project School, I was looking at the proposed guidelines which say, A school is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage[1] in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the school itself. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.[2] and while I agree there *should* be a ton of sources on a 100+ year old school, there haven't proved to be that many that meet WP:RS. But it looks like I'm outvoted here, I can live with that. Travellingcari ( talk) 12:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

A whole book on the history of a school is significant coverage and is a reliable secondary source. It can hardly be described as trivial. The sources available online are only the tip of the iceberg. It is also worth searching separately on Google Books. Dahliarose ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep as school with such a long history should be able to satisfy notability. Potential to expand and currently a valid stub.

Sting au Buzz Me... 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Secondary schools are part of wikiproject schools. Snowman ( talk) 17:33, 9 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. Deleted by User:Versageek per WP:CSD#A5 (article that has been transwikied). — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sidewalk superintendent

Sidewalk superintendent (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This was apparently transwikied a year ago, but it's still here. It's unclear from the comment later on the talk page and the history whether it came back or why, but it's still here. I wasn't entirely sure what to do with it, so I brought it here since I don't think it's encyclopedic and it's a neologism/dicdef at best Travellingcari ( talk) 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete A5, tagged. Jfire ( talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not a neologism. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sidewalk%20superintendent gives a date of 1940. -- Eastmain ( talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment ok so it's still a dictionary definition that was previously transwikied. It doesn't need to be here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 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. Canley ( talk) 10:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Shut Up Already

Shut Up Already (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete; NN song. Fails WP:MUSIC per criteria for albums/songs. Was not a single. Merge to Liberal Animation. Cool song, but does not deserve it's own page. Endless Dan 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete; Article does not mention notability and fails to explain anything other than the fact that the song exists to people who have never heard of the band or the song (such as I). Monkeytheboy ( talk) 22:25, 5 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 per author's request, and per nominator's volunteering to do as much. Easiest solution. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

NBC Slogans

NBC Slogans (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Full of WP:OR, uncited info, and opinion--and what's worse, the useful meat of it (the list of slogans themselves) has already been collected at List of NBC slogans. We definitely do not need TWO articles about the same subset of ad slogans, no matter how notable (and most of these, as evidenced by the large "delete" consensus at the AfD's for their individual articles, weren't very notable to begin with.) Gladys J Cortez 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge into List of NBC slogans. You're right, we don't need two - so why not just have one that combines both? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge. I created this page because each of the slogans pages were up for AfD thanks to Gladys but the information was too much to be merged into the NBC article. Someone else is welcome to merge this stuff into the List of NBC slogans page, but I've paid my dues for this issue. —   X   S   G  22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:I've left a comment for XSG; I didn't realize this was an effort to solve the problem rather than a separate problem of its own. My mistake, and as penance, I'll take care of the merge. Gladys J Cortez 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: it can be both, really... an attempt to solve a problem can become a problem in its own rights. It should be merged with the List of NBC slogans. —   X   S   G  15:49, 8 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Norman David Roussell

Norman David Roussell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

9 month old orphaned COI resume dump by entirely non-notable businessman. Travellingcari ( talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete not notable in the least. Jfire ( talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable orphaned conflict of interest. Doczilla ( talk) 01:02, 8 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 as blatant copyvio with no salvageable text within the article. nancy ^(talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Network of European Active Citizens

Network of European Active Citizens (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable organization. A total of six Google hits - and two of those are in Wikipedia and two are related to NEAC. Sbowers3 ( talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete - the main part of the article is copied directly from their website. Tagging as a copyvio-- Whpq ( talk) 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Tom Rannachan

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

There is absolutely no evidence that this psychic is in any way notable. Travellingcari ( talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete A7, tagged. Jfire ( talk) 21:58, 5 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; nicely cleaned up and referenced by Paul Erik.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dylan Rice

Dylan Rice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Asserts some importance, but seems non-notable _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{play it cool.} 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• There have been non-trivial mentions of Dylan Rice in The Advocate (at least twice) and in the Chicago Sun-Times. There has been a full article about Rice in the Chicago Tribune. I would say that's easily enough to pass WP:N. I've added those references just now. Keep. -- Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Paul Erik. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- there is no reason to delete this page based on the deletion guidelines. -- The tatooed lady —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.126.106 ( talk) 04:09, 9 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Admission Possible

Admission Possible (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Article borders on advertisement, is written in a promotional tone (and has been tagged as such since the day it was written), a contains a solitary source link pointing to the founder's bio. Coverage by the New York Times and Business Week is claimed, but no specific source is cited. I waited a while for the author to improve this, but he or she never did. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. KurtRaschke ( talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Written like an advert and appears abandoned. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{play it cool.} 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete - it's written like an advertisement. And it may be a possible copyvio of [4]. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete addishness. Doczilla ( talk) 01:04, 8 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) 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dave Clarke (DJ)

Dave Clarke (DJ) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Listed at votes for deletion because he does not meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria and probably the notability criteria as well ( WP:NOTE). Should really be transwiki'd under GFDL to a more apprepriate wiki. Solumeiras ( talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Is Dave Clarke and this one, one and the same? if so, redirect, if not, Delete. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ ( talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No, they're not the same individual. -- Solumeiras ( talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This particular Dave Clarke doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable - no significant independent coverage found.-- Michig ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to 100.7 Heart FM or a similar page. There are lots of these DJ articles, and I would personally be in favour of merging many of them into something like List of British DJs. Paul20070 ( talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete This has to be the least notable man on the face of the Earth. TheNextOne ( talk) 22:06, 12 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. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Audioscape

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

Reads like an advertisement, with no objective references (ie. all provided links sing the praises of the product). JuJube ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - looks like a copyvio of [5]. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Audioscape is not a product. It is a research project exploring an area which is relatively new: 3D audio modeling for music performance and listening. The text will evolve over the following two weeks. as it is indeed in a synthesis from our research texts. Regarding the provided links, they are strictly documentation of our research, or artworks. I do not understand at all how they can be regarded as "singing praise" of a product. I suggest taking a closer and more considered look at the text. zkonate Zkonate ( talk) 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note Zkonate is the author of the article in question. JuJube ( talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. Frankly, I suspect conflict of interest issues are the largest problem here. The article's lead:
  
  Audioscape is an open source research project, exploring 3D audio modeling for live music performance. It provides a framework for immersive spatial audio performance, where a user's body can be modelled within a virtual 3-D world, and the propagation of audio is computed based on acoustic physical modelling. This framework is among only a few that have explored virtual environments from the perspective of music and digital signal processing (DSP). It is an interactive and perceptually engulfing experience that causes users to feel like they are inside of an artwork or instrument.
  
  sounds interesting, but is also extremely vague and abstract, and gives me no sense of the hardware needed to perform in this environment or to listen to it. The article gives credit to the Canadian Council for the Arts, among other donors, so this may have some documentable notability. But I fear that someone less connected to it would write about it better and more clearly. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no independent verification of notability. Mukadderat ( talk) 23:42, 13 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. Black Kite 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Digital bra/bikini

Digital bra/bikini (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

A neologism sourced from one comment in an online discussion. Guy ( Help!) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not for things made up in a forum one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete – It is a shame, a well written article. However, I could find No sources or references on/for or about the term. If they could be provided, I would defentitly reconsider changing opinion. Shoessss |  Chat  18:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to insufficient sources. If sources later become available, the article can be re-created later. The term did show up in a Google Books search, which supposedly had a U.S. Congressional document saying, "The economic path the US is on, with the Digital Bra accelerating economic gains out of proportion ..." but the document turned out to actually say "Digital Era". [6] -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment LOL! -- Canley ( talk) 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep: You need to read this entry and to ask yourself "What is an appropriate level of sourcing for a word used by Anime fans?" this isn't a redflag claim, or an extraordinary entry, it's an entry about a simple phrase used by Anime and Managa fans to describe something simple and non-volatile. In this instance the level of sourcing is appropriate. As for not being able to find references to this phrase, please look more closely, within 10 seconds I found a good half dozen uses on a single notable website. * *

* * * *

Here are a couple of examples of fan use * * on message sites that don't meet sourcing criteria.

The term is notable and commonly used. It's also a stub so having 1-2 sources is no big deal. The fact that it has an image actually showing what happens is also a big thing in its favor. - perfectblue ( talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment – Hey - perfectblue I checked your sources and they are all from the same place. And to be honest, a quote from just one Site does not make for a Notable phrase. Sorry to say, you have not swayed my opinion. Shoessss |  Chat  22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Google search shows only de minimis usage as idiom. Minos P. Dautrieve ( talk) 03:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'delete or consider transwiki to Wiktionary. Right now, there are fan uses and a few mentioned in more substantive works but no reliabel source defines or discusses this notion at all. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7 (band that does not assert notability). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Safeer-e-arsh

Safeer-e-arsh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Looks like an A7, but that may be misleading (if it were a US band with sourcing this poor, it would be in the bitbucket by now). No independent sources, no evident claim of notability. Guy ( Help!) 18:09, 5 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. Borderline notability, but probably just enough. Some more (offline) sources from local editors would be good. Black Kite 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sophia Danenberg

Sophia Danenberg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

First person of a certain ethnicity and gender to climb a certain mountain. And that's about it, really. WP:BLP1E applies, I think. No sources included for anything outside of this one achievement. Guy ( Help!) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Ho and hum. Clarityfiend ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is both a notable mountain, a first (whether race, ethnicity, gender) which is also notable, and also a rarity in the sport (race and gender in high altitude climbing). rkmlai ( talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep – There seems to be enough coverage to pass WP:Notability based on my Google search as listed here [7]. They all state the claim, to notability, is that she is the first Black-American female to climb Mount Everest. Shoessss |  Chat  18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:N, though not by much. Sethie ( talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. The article notes that the local media didn't cover this so why is it notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster ( talk) 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The article as written: "But then she kept a low profile before, during, and after her climb. She wasn’t sponsored and didn’t send satellite photos or dispatches to news organizations, as many climbers do. The only people she kept in touch with, by e-mail, were her sister, her husband, and a colleague at work." so it is not that she, is not notable but that she didnt have publicity about herself before or after the event. I say it is Notable for wikipedia and the world.
-- rkmlai ( talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This is a new and surprising criterion if it is more than a compact way of saying "It's relatively easy to get publicity from your local paper, so what has kept the Hartford Courant from covering her?" That is far from a mere rhetorical question, and i can offer two quite specific and compelling possible answers:

1. The Courant presumably invested substantially in the "on assignment" expedition expenses of its reporter Michael Kodas, author of High Crimes: The Fate of Everest in an Age of Greed (releasing this month). I don't think we need to become authorities on the conflict-of-interest standards or financial realities of modern journalism to say that it's plausible that the paper might weigh the hazards of either being stereotyped as obsessed with Everest, or simply undermining its readers' appetites for Kodas's Everest tales, if it covered Dannenberg's story.
2. Dannenberg is a professional working in an engineering-dominated mega-corp, in an area that some engineers may consider significant mostly as an impediment to their work. I can imagine such a professional fearing that local publicity could evoke hostility in co-workers, based on theories that publicity enhanced her influence in decisions that should be based only on technical considerations, and therefore requesting that there be no local coverage.

-- Jerzy• t 08:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - does meet WP:N. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The Chicago Reader is pretty much a local (metro) paper (she's from Homewood, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago). The Chicago Tribune has also covered her. [8] Biggest problem here is not notability but cadging too much from the Reader article. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

  She also spoke of the event as guest of honor 200 miles (of dense urban corridor) away.
  -- Jerzy• t 08:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  

• Keep:

  Perhaps i've not read far enough in WP:BLP1E, but the tone of its first 'graph certainly doesn't support deletion in this case: minor crimes and running for office, AFIC see, are massively less notable than climbing Everest, even without the firsts, and IMO the article will be sought by student essayists and identity-pride speakers/educators (which most WP'ians aren't), and found by them if it is the target of suitable lks, so our individual interest in it, or the general public's, is a poor gauge of its notability.

  As to "First person of a certain ethnicity and gender ...":

  I grant that what we have here, a first for a combination of ethnicity and gender, is somewhat less notable than "first of an ethnicity" or "first of a gender". But the nom says "certain ethnicity and gender" as if any choice of them has the same significance. (Wrong: Suppose by a statistical anomaly something comparable had happened to be done by black men and Euro women, before the first Euro man. I don't think (even if some might) that either a black woman's Everest ascent or the hypothetical first Euro man's accomplishment is per se better than the others. But i don't think the Euro man's accomplishment would have the same significance and notability as Sophia Danenberg's.)

  And even if someone has achieved complete "race blindness" and "gender blindness" and is thus free of prejudice, i can't see how they could be so unaware of the role in modern thought of concepts like internalized racism and "multiple handicaps" operating synergistically, as to dismiss the significance of the concepts, and such talismans as Sophia Danenberg, in the lives of more typical humans.

  Please note that you don't have to even believe that internalized racism or synergism of handicaps is real, to know that the ideas matter. This is not a question of our taking the corresponding PoV, but of recognizing that holding the PoV is a real phenomenon, and that people doing so makes a difference in society and social psychology.

  I started the article without a clear thought about what makes it notable, but more the thought "far from run-of-the-mill, and others are better equipped than i to judge whether it rises to notability or not." And my first thot on the AfD was to argue a "weak keep" -- but i see the topic as more notable as i consider it. (I admit to being disappointed in how it's developed in abt 6 months, since i created the 2-sentence stub, but a lot of that is tone -- uh, dare i say, WP articles shouldn't sound like identity-pride speeches? -- but always remember that AfD is always about notability of the topic, and never about the current content of the article.)
  -- Jerzy• t 08:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  

• week keep' notable but more sources needed Logastellus ( talk) 11:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Wikipedia coverage of athletes is quite comprehensive and consensus standards for notability are rather generous. Significant press coverage is likely, though mostly offline media. Minos P. Dautrieve ( talk) 03:18, 10 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. Fram ( talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Pilot und Flugzeug

Pilot und Flugzeug (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

No evidence in any language that this m magazine is in any way notable. Creator seemed to agree on the talk page about a year ago. Travellingcari ( talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It's ironic that we look for articles about a subject from certain sources to establish notability of that subject, but some editors find those same sources un-notable. Also ironically, the google news link provided by the nom above demonstrates that this magazine is frequently reference by some of the most prestigious publications in the world like Die Welt and the Financial Times -- Oakshade ( talk) 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment: the edit history shows that the creator twice blanked the page, and despite being the only contributor of substantial content was twice reverted (once explicitly as a "vandal"). A few days later the only other substantial edits were made by "Janbrill" (coincidentally the name of the editor of the publication in question is Jan Brill, and these are the only two edits Janbrill ever made). Is it not normal to delete under these circumstances? Of course, if other editors beyond the creator are asserting and demonstrating notability, the article should be kept. -- Paularblaster ( talk) 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• KEEP, falls within guidlines of WP:CORP.-- Sallicio ^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 10:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

comment, as annoying as it is for the article creator to be vandalizing his own creation, the article itself is notable for Germany as Road & Track is to the US. So the article is keepable per guidelines, but is irrelevant for me personally.-- Sallicio ^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 10:39, 13 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 A7 by AndonicO. RMHED ( talk) 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Phillip Silverstone

Phillip Silverstone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This was nominated as failing WP:CSD#A7, but I'm not 100% sure, and think an AFD might be better. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Being the host of a two-time Emmy-nominated show might be enough, but a few of the other items listed, if given proper sourcing, should be enough to meet WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete looks like somewhat of a copyvio of [9]. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The Silverstone Collection.com is my own website and I own sole copywrite of it. I have amended my submission and linked to many pages. "Wine-tertaining" is also copywrited by me. Phillip Silverstone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.2.130 ( talk) 03:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete Phillip silverstone has already been deleted. Continuing blatant self-promotion and advertising by Phillip and his sockpuppet. dbfirs 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Deleted. · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:38, 8 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 transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Cariad

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

non-notable, 126 Google hits "Cariad wine" Rapido ( talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Transwiki – Would not say non-notable, quite a few hits on Google News. However, more a term of a particular type of wine that seems quite popular in England and Wales. Shoessss |  Chat  16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Transwiki - is also, IIRC, the Welsh word for love. Grutness... wha? 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Parker Vector

Parker Vector (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Advertising; no evidence of notability of this product. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Googling "Parker Vector" returns 116,000 pages, and the line is unquestionably popular. Sadly most of the sites are commercial (How do you find sources for a line of biros? LOL!). There are a couple of reviews I found here and here but I'm not sure they'd qualify as sources. If this article is going to be deleted, I think most of the branded items from Category:Pencils and Category:Pens would have to go too.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep – notable as shown here. [10], unless reviews by the New York Time and Washington Post do not count. Shoessss |  Chat  17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per those above me. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. I found 291,000 hits on Google! I do agree that the rule is not like the more hits, the more its notability. Still without having any substantial importance a pen won't get such a high number of hits. I do also agree with the point that it sounds like an advertisement. But, solution to this problem is cleanup not deletion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per google hits (which in this case can be considered valid) and reviews by newspapers (per Shoessss). Vice regent 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. While GHITS alone aren't strictly speaking WP:V, they should indicate to a responsible editor that reliable sources are more likely to be found than not with some sifting. If, after sifting, you still can't find any, then nominate and say so. Among other things, the pen was used to sign the pledge of impartiality during the Clinton impeachment trial in the US Senate (The Breach). -- Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep is notable, and a google search returns over 100,000 pages. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly notable. Doczilla ( talk) 01:08, 8 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Neil Michalares

Neil Michalares (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Contested deletion, notability issues. Afd-ed to geenrate a consensus. Thank you for your opinions. -- Tone 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Tone 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete – sorry only hits were MySpace and some blogs. Not quite enough to establish notability. Shoessss |  Chat  16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Detele as failed at both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (for being a drummer). -- Niaz ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Blogs and Myspace dominate the links - locally and regionally through the Indianapolis area Neil's bands are very poular. He is also a teacher of music throughout the Indiana area, and has affected hundreds of students. Through WP:MUSIC he has taken part in multiple national tours with Percival Potts, and released 2 albums with them and 1 with Mental Afro, amongst multiple guest appearances. As well, he is notably the only drummer in established live hip hop groups in the Indianapolis area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by In3d ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP: BIO says it all. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:25, 5 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. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The faerie door

The faerie door (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod; removed by anon IP without explanation. Non-notable book. Only 3 ghits; cites no sources, only makes claims of notability. Author does not have an article, either. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - It is not notable at all, as it has 208 Google hits (at least when I searched it), and not many of the searches seem connected to this article. It is also written very unencyclopedically. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. This book hasn't even been published yet (and isn't scheduled to be until October). While some upcoming books are notable, this book doesn't quite fall into the Harry Potter sphere. -- ShinmaWa^{( talk)} 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I tried with Google and found 544,000 entries. I found so many things, The Faerie Door Network, The Faerie Door Shop, The Faerie Door House, The Faerie Door Forest... but Alas! Where is The Faerie Door Novel? ... failed at WP:N and WP:V. -- Niaz ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per nom-- NAH ID 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a crystal-ball. The fact its release date is given as October 2008 may be part of the reason for its lack of sources. Recreate if and when the book is released and becomes notable enough. 1ForTheMoney ( talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP: CRYSTAL. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unlike most spammy adverts for books, this one at least is coming out from a major publisher -- but reviews indicating notablity won't be coming out until at least a couple months before publication. No prejudice against recreating if and when notability can be demonstrated. — Quasirandom ( talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per crystal. It's pretty ad-like. Doczilla ( talk) 01:09, 8 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. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sex economy (essay)

Sex economy (essay) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Article is essentially an essay about an essay which has not been shown to be notable in any way Obiter dictum ( talk) 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I believe the fact that the essay has been reprinted twice in independent anthologies on Reichian body-psychotherapy, several decades after its original publishing, as well as its printing both in English and in Norwegian speaks volumes about its appraisal among people who are knowledgable about Reich's work in this field. Of course, the fact that the essay outlines the theory and practice of sex economy in an outstanding fashion certainly makes the information conveyed in the article no less invaluable to Wikipedia's readers. __ meco ( talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • No doubt the topic of Sex economy is notable, and the essay in particular is a reliable source on the topic. But there is no reason Wikipedia should have an article on the essay rather than on the topic, cited to the essay. The article should at a minimum be moved, reduce its dependence on the essay as its primary source, and add additional sources and views on the topic. Obiter dictum ( talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete for being schizophrenic. Is the article about the theory of "Sex economy" or is it about the essay that described it? The article can't seem to make up its mind which it is. Under nearly all circumstances, academic articles themselves are not notable no matter how many times they are reprinted, but their subjects may be. I could be convinced that there could be a ' Sex economy' article if there are multiple verifiable references to it from reliable sources (this essay, by itself, counts as one reference, not multiple). The current references in the article are ancillary information, and don't address the actual subject of the article, which ostensibly is supposed to be about the essay itself and not the theory or theorists surrounding it. I'm also a little unmoved by meco's WP:INTERESTING argument right now. -- ShinmaWa^{( talk)} 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is presumably meant to be a summary of the general Reichian theory of sexuality, as interpreted by Raknes. I am not sure Reich ever actually used the phrase "sexual economy"--if he did, this article --and the article on Reich-- do not document it. It is therefore a neologism by Raknes, which does not seem to have come into general use. If there should be an specific article on Reich's views on sexuality, it should be written in a more general fashion with inclusion of references by others. If this particular interpretation is notable, there's no evidence of it provided in the article. The essay itself: like almost all scientific papers, the article by itself is not sufficiently notable for an article. (There seems to be an interesting walled garden of articles on Reichian concepts, mostly unreferenced--most are probably worth an article--all probably need to be re-examined from a NPOV.) DGG ( talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless heavily rewritten per DGG and Obiter. Reichian views of sexuality are eminently notable; Raknes's interpretation of them, not so much. The Raknes essay might easily be a source for an article, but not the focus. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per DGG. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete for all the good reasons given above. -- DrTorstenHenning ( talk) 08:13, 6 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. Hut 8.5 07:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

XIII. století

XIII. století (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Lack of sources and references. Not a notable band. Undeath ( talk) 16:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Doesn't seem notable, and even if it is, there are no sources and references to back it up. — Cuyler 91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete all the Google hits I getare to lyrics, tabs, videos, AOL video, last.fm, no actual sources of verification that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Never asserts notability Doc Strange ( talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. —  Wenli ^{( reply here)} 04:56, 6 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) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Aaron Goode

Aaron Goode (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod, original reason was "Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league - fails WP:BIO", contested by CJPargeter with an edit summary "Object to propsed deletion, as subject meets WP:N, having attracted attention from reliable sources." In fact, if he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources then he meets WP:BIO too. In such case such coverage should be shown.   Jhon y   16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.   Jhon y   16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO#Athletes and the attention from reliable sources is made irrelavant by this. Sean Thomas (English footballer) should also be deleted for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Number57, I left a reply for you on the project talk page: [11] :)   Jhon y   17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete both fail football notability criteria. If/when they make their professional debut they can be recreated King of the North East 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable footballer. Come back when/if he makes a fully professional league appearance. - fchd ( talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Question? Is the role of the secondary criteria to replace the primary criteria over the field they cover, to supplement it, by providing an alternative justification, or to add to it be requiring that both they and the publication criteria be met. as far as i can tell the official line is that they merely act as a shorthand for predicting whether the primary criterion is overwhelmingly likely or not to be met. If they are merely predictive, then an article with 2 RSs discussing his putative career would stand regardless of whether he ever actually played a game in any league at all. There is however only one source at present, but there would probably be another, and then he would be notable. Personally, I think that's nonsense, and the correct view is that they replace the primary criterion. Does that have general acceptance? Or is it only in sports that they replace it?
    • Well, WP:BIO says as it's base criteria "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.". That surely overrides everything else. Either someone is notable or not. You can't be notable from one rule. and then become unnotable again from another. But I don't think it applies yet. John Hayes ^talk 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Prod shouldn't have been contested. Peanut4 ( talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete currently fails WP:FOOTY, but if more second party sources are added I will change my vote. John Hayes ^talk 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Flint

Jeremy Flint (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

On Google, there are very few sites about him. Not referenced. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep - he seems notable from what I can see. He was notable enough for the New York Times to feature his obituary -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Quite a few articles from the New York Times say in the area of at least (40) as shown here [12]. In addition, multiple other articles both in the US and internationally as shown here [13]. Shoessss |  Chat  16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep—ACBL (Am Contract Bridge Lge) Encyclopedia entry for Flint fully justifies his inclusion. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 16:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - definitely notable having played for hist country in the Bermuda Bowl. The number of websites about someone is not a very reliable indicator. JH ( talk page) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Flint was a leading player of a well known card game that is widely played all over the world. He has even played bridge on TV. Viewfinder ( talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - As above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Number of Google search results should not have been used as a rationale for deletion, particularly for someone who died in 1989! Even then, did you check Google Books? Unreferenced articles should probably be deleted if it's clear such references are not going to be forthcoming, but it's a bit unfair to nominate an article four minutes after its creation rather than just tagging it as needing references and allowing a day or two for the article to be fixed up and referenced to its current state, which I'm sure you'll agree is fine. -- Canley ( talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep From what I have seen on Google, he seems pretty notable (I'm not an expert on this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong...) —  Wenli ^{( reply here)} 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notability looks good. Doczilla ( talk) 01:10, 8 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, fails WP:V. Recreate if you can provide reliable sources. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

True self

True self (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete this has been unsourced for 1.5 years and reads like a personal essay and OR. I am not sure that anyone can come up with any streamlined meaningful universally agreed upon definition of true self much less a coherent encyclopedic article about its significance. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, the abstract concept of "true self" has been studied in psychology -- that is, the question of whether there is such an animal and what might be a means to discover it. There's a close relationship to consciousness, of course. There are sourceable religious aspects as well. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Unsourced original research. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, weakly. Perhaps this stub would benefit mostly at present from being stubbified further; but the concept seems to be easily widespread enough to support an article. If deleted, it should be without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Unsourced or not, I believe that this could make a valuable encyclopedic entry. I dont have the knowledge to make it 'up to standard' but that is not to say that it wont ever be. The AfD process is to weed out the articles that wont ever be encyclopedic, this one will be. And the article does not have to be a 'universally agreed upon definition', that would be a editwar begging to happen. Exit2DOS2000^{• T• C•} 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. After all this time, it's still not an article. Regardless of originality of the term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla ( talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Self (spirituality), and perhaps create a redirect here to the Self dab page since it's a common, but ambiguous, term. There's no reason to have two separate stub articles ( True self and Self (spirituality)) when we could consolidate their information and become closer to having one full-fledged article. - Silence ( talk) 04:18, 8 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 by nominator. Even though the second title is still not reliably sourced, we can move it later if need be. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dead Man Walking (Torchwood) and A Day in the Death

Dead Man Walking (Torchwood) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

A Day in the Death (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Double nomination. The episode titles are currently unsourced. "Several websites" was named as a source, but even those have conflicting information. — Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Official confirmation of the title of the episode currently labelled "Dead Man Walking" will come from the BBC within the next week. So it's probably best to wait and see what they say before deciding whether to delete this page. Alberon ( talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - DWM 392 is out on the 7th, and will probably give the remaining titles, so we'll see then. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. If the episode titles change, then it's easy enough to move the articles, however note both episodes are scheduled to air within the next 4 weeks, therefore firm indication of their titles should be available very soon if not already. 23skidoo ( talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I removed the previous prod tag from both of these because they are already tagged as upcoming episodes and therefore subject to change. If something changes, deal with it then. Not sure why this would go to Afd. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Agreed. If there was some doubt of the existence of these episodes, then fine. But there are multiple confirmation that all 13 episodes of Torchwood Series 2 will air, so even if the articles were simply called "Episode 11" or whatever, they would be viable. If the titles end up changing, then the articles can be renamed in about 10 seconds. 23skidoo ( talk) 04:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete if it's not on Outpost Gallifrey, it doesn't exist Will ^{( talk)} 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Good grief, Keep. It comes from HDnet's online program guide. The information was taken down pretty soon after it went up, but not before it was mirrored everywhere. Aderack ( talk) 03:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - if they're not BBC-confirmed titles, then why on Earth are they on Wikipedia? Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and move if the titles change for some reason. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

*Delete - I'm guessing that these titles are not in DWM (since they would have been referenced by now if they were) - so there is no reason to have these articles. Stuart DD _{contributions} 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, keep, keep - There is simply no good reason to remove information such as this. It should be verifiable soon enough, weeks before it airs. Keep it around for another 10 days or so, at the very least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Homoaffectional ( talk • contribs)
• Keep. Plenty of sources provide the names -- e.g., tv.com. [14] Doczilla ( talk) 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Radio Times website now has the listing for episode 7 and the title given for the episode is "Dead Man Walking" [15]. Given that the Radio Times is published by a subsidiary of the the BBC, I think that can be considered an official source. Alberon ( talk) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Change to Keep - First title now sourced by Radio Times. Stuart DD _{contributions} 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as per above. 84.70.190.214 ( talk) 23:26, 7 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 then redirect to Diamond (rapper) as recreated content. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Bitch Music

Bitch Music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom by User:Mdsummermsw; tag was placed but discussion was never made. Edit summary read "needs salt". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oops. My bad. This article has been deleted repetedly and reposted (with no improvement/changes) by the same user. Please delete, with salt. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt, repeated re-creation of non-notable mixtape; a search for sources turned up nothing, and mixtapes aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment My !vote is in no way biased by my procedural completion of this nomination on the nominator's behalf. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete – LOL getting a little paranoid there Ten Pound Hammer :-). Agree with nominator. Shoessss |  Chat  17:15, 5 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 Walnut Valley Unified School District. Please note, I will not be merging any content that can be found in the page history of the redirect page, as it would give undue weight to this one school as compared to the 14 schools. Also, note that the other middle schools, Suzanne Middle School and Chaparral Middle School (Diamond Bar, California) may be rediredirect candidates as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

South Pointe Middle School

South Pointe Middle School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

NN school. There is nothing to distinguish this school from every other middle school in America. No sources are present, every link provided fails WP:RS. meshach ( talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Merge/redirect - 1) "California Distinguished School" probably doesn't meet the proposed guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (schools)"receiving the highest available official assessment". GreatSchools.net is not a reliable secondary source. 2) The use of technology (podcasting, iMacs, XP, etc) in the classroom is not sufficiently unique, nor are any secondary sources provided. 3) The modern style of the campus is also not sufficiently notable. In general, without any additional secondary sources, the article about this school fails to meet Notability, Verifiability, and Reliable sources. It also falls short of meeting any of the other proposed Primary or Alternate criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Merge/redirect to Walnut Valley Unified School District as suggested in proposed Wikipedia:Notability (schools). -- Daddy.twins ( talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Merge per twins, above. I clearly can't think for myself. ;) CRGreathouse ( t | c) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Merge/redirect to Walnut Valley Unified School District per accepted practice. TerriersFan ( talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Per WP:SCHOOL I think the redirect is a good solution. meshach ( talk) 20:25, 7 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 per WP:CSD#G12 -- pb30< talk> 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

India’s Contributions to Mankind and World Progress

India’s Contributions to Mankind and World Progress (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete as blatant WP:POV pushing and unwarranted WP:FORK Mayalld ( talk) 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. In addition to POV pushing, the page is a copy of http://user.wangjianshuo.com/UmaShankar.htm. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:06, 5 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 as obvious hoax Gwernol 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Lemony cricket

Lemony cricket (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

I don't remember this character, and apparently neither does Google. If he/she does exist, then I suspect that they are a stunningly minor character with no sources that attest to their notability or importance. Lankiveil ^{( complaints | disco)} 14:19, 5 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 - G7, blanked by author. Hut 8.5 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Liam James Spencer

Liam James Spencer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable amateur bowls player. Has possibly won an U18 singles title in Leicestershire, but I cannot find anything online to back this up, or indeed anything on this particular competition, which leads me to believe it may be non-notable. Additionally, "Liam James Spencer" in Google turns up nothing except this article, and various other permutations of his name only pick up an artist by the same name in Leicestershire.

Either he's a non-notable amateur bowls player, or, based on the tone of the article and utter lack of supporting material, it's possibly a hoax. Lankiveil ^{( complaints | disco)} 14:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note to Admin: The article, aside from the AFD notice, has been blanked by the original author. This should be a Speedy Delete as author requested. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:27, 6 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 previous consensus of the related Lists (missed nom). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

List of contemporary and crossover baritones

List of contemporary and crossover baritones (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of contemporary and crossover bass-baritones (and other similar lists nominated therein). This article should probably have been included in that AFD at the time... Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete as the nominator of the other lists. I simply didn't catch this one. AniMate 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, does no good. Punkmorten ( talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question - What is a "crossover baritone"? The Transhumanist 18:28, 12 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. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

New York Zoo (film)

New York Zoo (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This film article is a suspected hoax as part of a trend to create fake articles about animated films involving animals with celebrity voices. See previous AFDs of these deleted articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal City (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Rat Movie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jujitsu Deer, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vic and Marty. I attempted to AGF first and seek out verifiable coverage for this film, but there is none to be had, making it extremely likely that this is a hoax and the editor is a sockpuppet of Lyle123 (see report here). Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a hoax, or at best, as per the notability guidelines for films. No verifiable coverage exists on this production either way; it should go. Steve ^{T • C} 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete No IMDB entry, no Google news coverage – it's a hoax. It would be nigh on impossible for Wilson's name to be attached to any project without some coverage, these days. -- Sturm 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 10 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 apparent nom withdrawal (see last comment by Niaz). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Little Wars (album)

Little Wars (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced and unverifiable music album that even doesn't contain its artist name! Tried to go for a speedy but didn't find any suitable criteria to fit it there. -- Niaz ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep This is the new Unwed Sailor album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Thanks. I tried with Google but it didn't return a single page (within first two pages) that supports its existence. Now with the help of your post (taking artist name) I managed some references. But, this album has not been released yet, and will be released on 18 March 2008 [16]. I am also in a dilemma (Delete or Weak Keep?). -- Niaz ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I know what you mean, and while articles for not-yet-released albums tend to be discouraged, I can't see much reason to delete an article which will almost certainly be recreated a month from now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I was thinking exactly like you. If we delete this article today, we'll have to create it once again in next month. So, there is no point of deleting such stuff. -- Niaz ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per WP:CSD#A3 and WP:CSD#A7. — Satori Son 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Mark Moore (writer)

Mark Moore (writer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)