Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & Redirect to Hayseed Dixie --JForget 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You Wanna See Something REALLY Scary?

You Wanna See Something REALLY Scary? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable EP; no third party reviews, no All Music Guide listing, etc. etc. A search for sources turned up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources. Renee (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, even though they do the Monster Mash (it was a graveyard smash!).Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• You Wanna See Something REALLY deleted? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I do. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Me too, for exactly the reasons TPH's otters mentioned. No evidence it's notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as obviously non-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7. Tiptoety ^talk 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lil Texas

Lil Texas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable rapper, speedy tag's been removed about 8 times FCSundae (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete No reliable sources on the rapper. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC, so tagged. And didn't he know the name Little Texas was already taken? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laptop sleeve

Laptop sleeve (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no sources for this article apart from the word "manufacturers". Doesn't appear to be anything more than a dictionary definition. Was prodded but the prod notice was removed without explanation by the original author. Gwernol 23:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems like the laptop sleve might possibly be an invention worthy of a Wikipedia article, but, if it is kept, this article needs to be heavily revised. As is, the language is not encyclopedic at all, and the article is too short and has no references. I am not opposed to deleting it, though, because I'm not sure what else could be said about a laptop sleve beyond a mere dictionary definition. I feel like a tourist (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I will modify the language to be a little more encyclopedic. Thanks for the advice.Molivolo:Wiki Newbee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molivolo (talk • contribs)
• weak Keep, I think it is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and I don't think lack of sources really counts as a deletion criterion - WP:SOFIXIT. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  No, but the fact that this is simply a dictionary definition does. If we removed the unsourced material, we'd be left with a one line dictionary definition., which belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. The question is, is there anything beyond the dictionary definition to put in this article? I doubt it. Gwernol 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  I still stand by WP:SOFIXIT, and I still think it is sufficiently notable for its own article. Weakly though. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  Delete: To quote from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." No sources not merely is a deletion criterion, it's the most fundamental one on Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, there is little more of use here than a dictionary entry, which should be elsewhere. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep More than a definition--they've probably actually been reviewed--even accessories like this get reviewed--, so source could be found .DGG (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a commonly used term for products like this, meaning information can be found in reviews, press releases from companies that manufacturer these products, etc. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• delete If this belongs in wikipedia it is as a short subsection of an article called laptop bag. But there isn't much more than definition to provide, even for a more general article. There are no "notable" laptop bags. maxsch (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete At best this could be a couple of lines in a larger article about laptops or just a dictionary definition --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless (and until) notability can be established. Because a product has 'probably' been reviewed isn't enough to create (or keep) an article waiting for someone to find such a review.  Frank  |  talk  11:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: what good would a 'laptop sleeve' review even do for this article beyond providing a source for the definition of 'laptop sleeve.' How could this article ever be more than a definition? I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marv Merchants

Marv Merchants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Character is insufficiently notable to have own article, content wold be better off merged to the various Home Alone films, if it's not already there. No references to support notability. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge. Into the Home Alone article as suggested above. Renee (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge As above Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fictional character who has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Into the Home Alone --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable character. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect. Lara❤Love 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arlene Pileggi

Arlene Pileggi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this BLP article is non-notable or of extremely marginal notability (very bit part in X Files tv series). While there is no dispute at the moment, the lack of references and marginal notability make it difficult or impossible to maintain this article at a high standard. Avruch ^T 22:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mitch Pileggi since that's what we normally do with marginally-notable-relatives-of-notable-people, as we mention them in the notable person's article. --Rividian (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as above.-- danntm ^T _C 03:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect for the same reasons. commentPlease note that the page was not marked with deletion tag initially, but I have done that now. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean Bottom(album)

Ocean Bottom(album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable album. Has not been the subject of any independent coverage. I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a single of the album with similar notability:

Techno Groove (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) ~ Eóin (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ocean bottom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Amrus Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - related articles added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All I can't find any evidence that this is a notable album, nor can I find evidence that the single is notable. Heck, I can't even find any real verifiable info on the band, so I've added them to this AfD too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, and let's delete the label too, for the same reason as above; no notability, no verifaible sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good catch. Comment: The label and band could be speedy deleted but I think it would be best to keep them bundled for this AFD. ~ Eóin (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all; fails notability. --John (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If Wikisource is interested in this, I'm willing to provide the text of the deleted article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum allowable concentration of Pollutants in Atmosphere for Protection Crops

Maximum allowable concentration of Pollutants in Atmosphere for Protection Crops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a copy-paste of a law in China. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikisource; Wikipedia isn't a primary source repository. I'm not too familiar with Wikisource's inclusion criteria, though; if they don't want it, then I recommend delete. If someone were to try and write an article about this law, I would question its notability and encyclopedic value. AnturiaethwrTalk 01:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete cut'n'paste text of English translation of Chinese law. No articles link to this. I'm not sure if this would be worthwhile in the "eyes" of Wikisource. There's no context here. B.Wind (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marionette Box Theatre

Marionette Box Theatre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find anything to establish notability for this band. [1]I feel like a tourist (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, A7. The article itself said their only output (a demo tape) went nowhere. No establishment of notability at all. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Shinmawa, so tagged. Blair - Speak to me 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global smoking habit

Global smoking habit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not an encyclopedic topic. It is an informational health article. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep seems encyclopaedic to me and notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Not linked from User:Globalecon/Global_Economics but very similar. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, with minor merging to Smoking and Tobacco and health. "If you are one of the 1 billion people who smoke, then you might be interested that this article is an essay". Although AFD is not cleanup, most of the non-fluff information here is redundant with that in Smoking and Tobacco and health. Recommend taking any additional verifiable information from this article, merge it, and deep-six this one. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's not written in an encyclopaedic style (e.g., "here are some astonishing statistics that you might want to be familiar with"), but even if it were, the "global" statistics seem to have been thrown in gratuitously for an essay about the health consequences of tobacco. It's an essay from start to finish, with selected stats thrown in for persuasive purposes. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT#OR. Deor (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Mostly original research and synthesis. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seems like a school essay, violates WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The addition of a source was enough to convince a few folks to support keeping this or at least taking a neutral stance. There's not a consensus to delete, but there's not exactly a consensus to keep either since we only seem to have one published sources on this fellow. It would be helpful if Skysmith could track down the book and add specific citations with page numbers. There's a possibility that the person fails WP:N if the book mentions are only trivial, but we're kind of stymied until we know what's there, and given the keep sentiment expressed below defaulting to that seems the best course for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Hewitt (impostor)

Martin Hewitt (impostor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does this person even exist? There is a vague smell of hoax. A quick Google search does not seem to reveal other than Wikipedia mirrors and other people of the same name. Goochelaar (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is long enough ago that internet refs are unlikely to exist. The article's creator has a large number of good contributions. Hoax seems to be a premature conclusion.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article has been on WP since Jan 2004 and it still has no references or citations of any kind. I tried to do various kinds of GoogleSearches and came up with nothing but a bunch of mirrors and clones for the WP article. So far, nothing to indicate that this person even exists and the entry is one giant WP:V problem. I do not find Fabrictramp's comment persuasive in terms of the notability of the subject. If the subject were notable, there would be something about him in some reasonable source somewhere on the Internet. Even if it turns out that this person does exist, it is hard to imagine how WP:N or WP:BIO or any other notability guideline could be satisfied here, given the dearth of Internet references. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am changing my vote to Neutral for the time being, pending verification of sources mentioned by Skysmith below(at which time I'll probably change it to keep). I'd still like someone who has physical access to the book to look it up, see if there are newspaper and magazine mentions of the subject cited in the book and, preferably, add them to the WP entry. I hope that the closing admin will give this AfD sufficient time for this. Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional delete pending author User:Skysmith's response. I agree with Fabrictramp that Skysmith's good contribution history (including starting numerous articles on famous impostors) means this is probably not a hoax. But we still need to see sources (and I can't find any on the Internet, Westlaw, or the New York Times archives). NawlinWiki (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I take it on good faith per above that this isn't a hoax, but it still fails WP:V as I cannot find a single corraborating source. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment by the nominator - I am sorry if I have given the false impression of accusing the first contributor (User:Skysmith) of being a hoaxer. I just meant that such a colourful biography of such a colourful character, with no sources to support it, reads somewhat like a made-up story, even if it is not. I apologise if I seemed to imply otherwise. Goochelaar (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable and therefore not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable sources are added as WP:BLP applies (since there is no indication the man is deceased). 23skidoo (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep + Comment The imposture happened so long ago that there is no reference to it in internet. My main sources are books (and please, no comments "add a link", please). I've included the one reference I remember but I am not home at the moment so I'll have to check the exact pages later. I've used the same book as a reference before. The other I remember is an old Reader's Digest book with a name that escaped me at the moment - Skysmith (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the book reference. I looked it up on Amazon and Barnes&Noble and there is a slight discrepancy in terms of the spelling of the title that other participants should be aware of. Both B&N[2] and Amazon[3] list the title under "Imposters Six Kinds of Liar". However, Amazon has the picture of the cover of the book where the title is "Impostors: Six Kinds of Liar". I am not sure what accounts for the spelling discrepancy but people should probably use the "imposters" spelling when doing searches. About the book itself. I checked and our university library does not have the book and our city library does not have it either. I am not sufficiently interested in the subject to actually order it from Amazon but I'd appreciate some more details from those who have the book. For example, does the book cite any newspaper/magazine articles about Martin Hewitt and his hoaxes? If yes, which articles and where? Are there any other books that mention Martin Hewitt as an impostor? To me, at least, it is important to know this when determining notability. If the only source is the book of Burton, then I do not see the subject as passing either WP:N or WP:BIO. If there are other sources to cite, then maybe. Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I found several reviews of the "Impostors" book on Westlaw. None of them mentions Martin Hewitt -- which doesn't mean he's not in there, just that someone is going to have to actually find the book to verify this. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I do not have access to the book right now so I cannot actually check. If I remember correctly (and I do have to check), he is mainly mentioned. The book mainly refers to other books (and couple of historical newspaper articles). The other book I remember is the one from the Reader's Digest from the 1980's. As for the Amazon - well, I do not know who inputs the book titles but I have seen several typos myself. And the page of my book does say "Impostors" - Skysmith (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Skysmith. Sources don't have to be online, and book reference has been added. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable hoaxer.DGG (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Gwalla, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meta-4

Meta-4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable. Speedy tag twice removed by creator. FCSundae (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• A7 CEO of a non-notable label, all sources are primary. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Itlizard

Itlizard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not speedying this as spam, as there's that vague assertion of notability (the award), plus a number of editors seem to have at least glanced at this without being tempted to delete it - but this looks like an unsalvageable piece of spam ("other projects are planned but are considered top secret", indeed!). As always, perfectly willing to be persuaded it's keepable. — iridescent 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - for now. The award the site won isn't cited and there aren't any other claims of notability. However, with some citations and the removal of some the POV elements (top secret?), I'd be willing to change my opinion. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. KTC (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - might be a great site, but notability not established.  Frank  |  talk  11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of third-party reliable sources to establish notability (I've briefly searched Google News and Books, and found nothing). Jakew (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Snowball delete --JForget 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WcDonald's

WcDonald's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is only one source, which is of a screencap of one anime. Do all the others use WcDonalds? Besides, are they truly related? Even if they were, I think it wouldn't be notable enough for its own article. --Jedravent (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Somehow this ended up becoming a messy coatrack (not in the very sense of the policy, just in the general word) for every McDonald's parody ever in television and movies. One-off appearances in anime certainly don't establish the notability. Nate • (chatter) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Good article, but doesn't seem notable enough. Dwilso 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced fancruft, fails WP:FICT. McDonald's is one of the world's top three brands, and we could have thousands of articles for every time it gets played up in popular culture. We mostly don't need to do that at all and should only permit the ones with exemplary sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft; there're many, many parodies of McDonald's and this one is not any more notable than the others. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. Wikipedia is not place for original research. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, completely unnotable instance of a common way to parody/avoidance of licensing fees. Fails WP:FICT. Collectonian (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. While it's mostly true, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources covering the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete coatrackish, as a good chunk of the article isn't about WcDonald's at all. What's there is OR. JuJube (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: An article on the use of parody versions of trademarks in anime (and in general) could be written, with this as an example, using reliable sources -- the phenomenon has been commented on. But this isn't that article. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 18:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Title

The Title (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The cited sources are insufficient to show notability per WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND and probabaly WP:MUSIC.
• Delete References only to social networking type sites - fails WP:BAND. CiTrusD ^{Talk here!} 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No independent cited sources - no independent coverage, apparently. Relatively new "underground band" would have great difficulty meeting WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. Article is premature, to say the least. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Female Extension

Female Extension (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Article in question is quite biased. The sources listed are all written by the artist, miss Sollfrank. Searching Google has yeilded a lack of third party sources. User:Frandlthing 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• delete as a promotion for a non-notable... thing. --Damiens.rf 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional article for non-notable whatever it is. (Formatting issues in AfD also fixed.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:53, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Check the talk page for some IP rambling in defense of the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While the art project may have notability, it is impossible to prove without additional scholarly sources. The apperent lack of sources unaffiliated with Sollfrank and her artwork makes an extremely difficult task of editing this entry to reduce bias. The article, as well as the sources, are clearly written from the standpoint of a supporter of "Female Extension" and not a neutral art critic. The focus of the sources is on the purpose of (more specifically the political statement made by) the project, not the overall quality or artistic merit. Anyone can make a political statement and then create a webpage about it, but that does not classify it as having either verifiability or notability. It would seem that this entry was made in an attempt to lend credibility to the project itself, rather than to document the existance and notibility of Female Extension 65.26.156.135 User:Frandlthing 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Not a lot in the way of available sources regarding the subject. It may be notable, but it doesn't seem to be verifiable on a large scale. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. Lack of reliable 3rd party sources. And notability doesn't seem established in the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete lack of reliable sources, could be notable but no sources to prove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain-tucker (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Lamont

Dave Lamont (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio personality. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The references are completely ill-advised, also fails notability. Dwilso 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Morning show host on an influential and well-rated radio station in a major U.S. market. I do suggest cleanup work on the article, however. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as Lamont is subject of significant secondary coverage from 15+ years of reliable sources (check out this Google News search) in his roles as a radio host and a sports commentator. The article needs significant reworking but notability and verifiability are not valid concerns with this subject. - Dravecky (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete article fails to establish why this radio personality is notable. There are 10's of thousands of DJs, thousands of "voice of _____ University football", they aren't all notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Read the article again. It's in the lead that this subject is the morning host on a major radio station in a major U.S. market (Miami). --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment His employeer is notable, that doesn't make him notable. Notability of people and organizations are judged differently. WP:BIO inisists on significant coverage in 3rd party sources. This article lacks that.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Local host on a Miami AM station, no broader claim to notability. At best he rates a one sentence mention in the WIOD article. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence emerges that he's notable per WP:BIO. Jakew (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't understand how people are still claiming non-notability after Dravecky has presented very clear evidence that he is notable per WP:BIO. Why do you want evidence to "emerge" when it's already right there in front of you? Have you actually looked through those search results, which include many articles from the Miami Herald which are about the subject, not just passing mentions? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As noted, article needs work, but here are tons of sources that demonstrate his notability. Claiming to be a host in a major market is sufficient for a claim of notability, and the sources prove it. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Sorry, but WP:BIO is trumped by WP:V. There are plainly indepth, reliable articles about the subject, not merely mentioning him in passing. That's the fundamental inclusion criterion.  RGTraynor  16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, and restructure current article actually downplays his notability as his work for ESPN and his Associated Press awards are barely mentioned. B.Wind (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carmen Perez

Carmen Perez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actress. Most Yahoo and Google hits don't refer to this particular actress. High WP:COI as well ... author Ricabaja (talk · contribs) claims to be Carmen Perez herself. Barely escapes an A7 by the skin of its teeth. Blueboy96 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete yeah, not notable enough, seems to be one of those articles people write about themselves. KC109 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC).
• Delete The article claims to be written by the subject herself. Fails WP:COI. --Porqin (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Only one role in a film that somebody may have actually seen. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:COI also non notable. BigDunc (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - acting career are very minor roles, which has not generated any coverage in reliable sources. Article is an autobiography and is in fact a copy of the actor's own websites. -- Whpq (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable actress- Creating her own article certainly appears to be self-promotional and therefore is a conflict of interest, but a COI isn't grounds for a delete. Here is a link to her IMDB profile. As expected, a collection of very minor roles. Her profile also carries the 'self-authored' scent.--Shaggorama (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation if it actually was released and sources can be found. Black Kite 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Stalin Subway

The Stalin Subway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I started to take this on as a copyedit project until I realized that the article is completely unsourced. Went on Google and all I could find were press releases, a single review (likely trivial) and the studio's webpage. Appears NN. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Fictional game characters are not encyclopedic and should be speedy deleted. Dwilso 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is about a game, not the character in the game. Google has quite a few hits, but it appears to be a rather not-so-well known game.
  • Comment I also wasn't implying that the game was unencyclopedic, it just doesn't appear to be notable, based on the lack of independent, non-trivial references on the game. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - most I found was a preview from GameSpot, but they never reviewed it. As it stands, should be deleted, but I'll be happy to reconsider if some reviews can be found. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, just a couple previews from 2006 since apparently it has never been released. Captain-tucker (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roberts' Rule

Roberts' Rule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically a meme whose life started and ended within the walls of the university of Wisconsin. Even the article notes that this has never been published anywhere. Pichpich (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Robert's Rules of Order, which has nothing to do with this particular "rule", but seems like something that would make a good redirect. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as an aphorism with no notability and redirect as Mandsford suggests. At present a Google for "roberts rule site:en.wikipedia.org" does show parliamentary procedure second and some other articles that mention the work, but not the work itself anywhere in the first 100 (10 pages') results. By contrast a Google for "roberts rules" internet-wide brings up our article on the work on the first page of results. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've added the AFD tag to the article... --barneca (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I should always double-check the result of Twinkle AfD noms. Pichpich (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no-redirect. I don't think this title is close enough to "Robert's rules of order" to merit a redirect. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable; almost certainly WP:OR. Don't think it is worth a redirect. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as patent nonsense. Blueboy96 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zhi treats hemorrhoids

Zhi treats hemorrhoids (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not apparent in this article Ecoleetage (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, as notability is not apparent. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sheriff Teddy the Law Dog

Sheriff Teddy the Law Dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book by non notable author. Google shows only author's myspace page. AlsoWP:COI only contribution by Jgm219, obviously the author of the "book". Camillus 19:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No visible notablity. Like they say in Arkansas: this dog don't hunt. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: No references, fails notability. Dwilso 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as it appears to strongly fail WP:BK. A total of 2 ghits (both Wikipedia) and a COI aren't helping either. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NN. This article is about the fictional character itself? --Porqin (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously non-notable. Complete lack of sources. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, could find no sources --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yodasnews.com

Yodasnews.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable fan-driven web site. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable website failing WP:WEB. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Per WP:SNOW, deleted a non-notable unreleased album from a non-notable (deleted article) band that has never produced another album. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Again (album)

Hello Again (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Forthcoming album by a non-notable band (this will be their first album). The article about the band was deleted. Damiens.rf 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The consensus below is that the article subject meets the standard of WP:MUSIC. Darkspots (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yehuda Gilad

Yehuda Gilad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject does not appear to be notable within his field. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, No apparent notability. Fails WP:PROF. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:MUSIC is probably a better basis for evaluating notability in this case, and the international touring and awards seem to indicate notability. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE1DF123CF93BA35753C1A9669C8B63&sec=&spon= for one of several articles in the New York Times. Note that there is an Israeli politician by the same name who appears to be notable as well. See http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=716 --Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to satisfy the requirements for musicians. DGG (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Excluding the Israeli politician from the search the subject gets 100 hits in the Google News Archive, many of them devoted to the subject, and 7 hits on Google Books. How many of the black punk death groove metal bands that we welcome with open arms get even one mention in such sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Eastmain's observation above and my own Google noodling. I just made a few edits to the article, and in doing so, noticed that a lot of this article comes from this reference, and gets dangerously close to violating WP:COPYVIO. Tan | 39 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Redirect to Mission (Christian) Nakon 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mission trip

Mission trip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about Christian missions, which are covered by Mission and Mission (Christian). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The mere assertion that the subject is "not notable" is unconvincing when discussing a neutrally written, multiply reliably referenced article. Also, WP:BLP is not violated by this list, inter alia because it is adequately referenced and does not serve primarily to mock or disparage its subjects. The valid "delete" arguments, of which too few have been made, focus on issues pertaining to our project's scope, as reflected in WP:NOT#IINFO / WP:NOT#DIR. Sandstein (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who have been pied

Please note that this has previously been nominated a bit over a year ago. I hope that times have changed for Wikipedia, as I see little to no value in providing a list of people who have been "pied", quite the contrary actually and I think WP:BLP would advise against such a list. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- Not notable, unless you are a Moe Howard fan. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to pieing. Keep per below. It does happen, as with Bill Gates, and as someone points out, it's a form of assault that is used to get publicity (and it usually works because the evidence of the assault is so visible). Analogies to swirlies and Three Stooges are kind of humorous, but not relevant. The incidents enumerated here are not at all funny. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep far too big to merge which is the likely reason it has a seperate article in the first place. Seems full sourced. Confirmed. this is a fork of Pieing --neonwhite user page talk 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- Not very notable but well-referenced.--Jerrch 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep No argument made as to what part of this article violates WP:BLP (in fact, I think it supports it very nicely), or what has changed on wikipedia since it was previously nominated. Notability of topics for articles depends on the number of third parity reliable sources discussing it. The article is very well sourced and interesting. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Makes about as much sense as List of people who have had their tires slashed or List of people who have been given swirlies. Not even encyclopedic enough a topic to mention in the subjects' own articles, much less in its own list. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If either of those had multiple notable cases that have been reoprted by reliable sources then those article would be acceptable too. --neonwhite user page talk 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Pieing is historically an act to show political dissent in a very public way. That's why the list is of notable public figures (e.g. Bill Gates and Ralph Nader). If publically slashing tires or giving swirlies ever become a popular form of political protest (an idea I'm not completely opposed to :), it would be reasonable to have an article on it. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

List of people who have had their houses picketed, then. Pieing is like any other form of protest - usually not notable. What is it about pieing that gives it any special importance over other non-notable protest gestures by non-notable people? KleenupKrew (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is reported in multiple verifiable sources making it notable. This is what notability is based upon. --neonwhite user page talk 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the sources cited in this article. Out of 71 citations I see exactly 10 to notable, reliable sources: 3 to CBS News, 2 to abc.au, 1 to the CBC, 1 to UPI, and 3 to local media outlets in Cincinnati, Providence, and Grand Rapids. Of the rest, 17 cite to a single anarchist "pieing" advocacy website, entartistes.ca, many others are to other non-notable or unreliable anarchist websites such as Indymedia, Eat the State, the Biotic Baking Brigade, and antimedia.net. Other citations include blogs, YouTube, and Flickr. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found anarchist journalists to have surprising good reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. But, point taken. This is why we have {{refimprove}} -- Scarpy (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep its too big an article to merge, its also well referenced Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Too many references to call it not notable, well sourced, and a really good example of what a list should be. Merge would be too bulky for pieing. Jim Miller (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as this would be too big to merge, and it's well-sourced and notable enough to not delete. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Utterly nn. Either delete or add the Piper of Hamelyn. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - Because IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. I don't understand how this particular article meets notability criteria and the article would seem to be a spam magnet with many of it's "references" being to video and other media. Does List of people that have been egged exist? How about List of people that have been floured? List of people that have been covered in fake blood? If the pieing is notable it is easy enough to place the information in the individual's article. Just my thoughts Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is actually a fork from the main article due to size. --neonwhite user page talk 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep, well sourced and populated with notable people. "Pie in the face" is a notable (if silly) form of expression that receives great attention when it is applied to political leaders in particular. As with all these types of lists, should be policed to make sure no unverified claims are made (especially any that violate WP:BLP), but as it stands now it's sourced, a notable topic - that makes it viable. It could stand to use a better introduction, but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable subject, featuring notable people. One of the things (but not the only) that sets pieing apart from other possible forms of protest mentioned above is that there are groups set up specifically to engage in pieing and there are no such groups for those forms mentioned above (e.g., I’m not aware of any groups set up specifically for egging people in protest or slashing tires, etc.). Perhaps a more specific title for the article would be appropriate. Something along the lines of “Public figures and authorities who have been pied in protest” to clarify that pieings in slapstick performances and such is not within the article’s topic. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. An interesting list, populated with notable individuals and with information sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Most useful on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Skomorokh 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this list has an unambiguous selection criteria, clear scope, is verified by reliable sources and as the act is a well-defined and documented form of direct action, the list is non-frivolous. Skomorokh 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep This list is about a milder form of political protest than List of assassinated people, but much better sourced than that list — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable list. Notability for the list criterion is not established, and I disagree that it is notable at all. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - both the activity of pieing and practitioners the Biotic Baking Brigade are both notable, as verified by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Specific pie incidents account for dozens of news articles in highly respected outlets (NYT, WaPo, SF Chronicle etc.): Google News results. How on earth is it non-notable?! Skomorokh 22:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps pieing is notable, but that is not at issue. Why is a list of people who have been pied notable? What is notable about this list criterion, that these people so listed have been pied? It seems awfully arbitrary to group people according to this criterion. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Notability is based on the number of independent third party reliable sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Response That is false, and contradicts WP:BLP and similar policies entirely. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's completely true. According to the general notability guideline a topic is presumed notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:BLP just builds on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR with respect to articles about living people. Let me ask you this: if this was a list of people who are now dead who were pied while they were alive, would you still have issues with it? -- Scarpy (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, a trivia list article and therefore a violation of WP:TRIVIA. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - That's a shrewd argument. I just had a look at WP:TRIVIA and for the life of me I can't find anything in there about deleting articles with lists. I did find this advice pretty interesting: "In this guideline, the term 'trivia section' refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." -- Scarpy (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists as notability has been established through verifiable sources and persuasuive arguments made throughout this discussion. The discriminate topic has real world significance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable and well referenced. Ford MF (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• peeK no explainable reason to delete. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Delete per WP:BLP#Basic human dignity Sceptre ^(talk) 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be written from a NPOV to me. --neonwhite user page talk 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Has it really come to this, an encyclopedia with a list of people being pied? Alientraveller (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think this violates the Basic human dignity, since most of the enteries where pied in an act of protest rather than hijinks. They are also not notable "only" for the pieing, so the second part of that section is also not applicable. Now I am not for Hijinks pieing beeing listed, so any enteries that fall under that catagory should probably be deleted as par Septers point, but the article itself does have scolorly merit...if you research protests and protest methods.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. When notable people are "pied" it's often newsworthy. That's evidence of its notability. This list is neutral and thoroughly sourced. It does not catalog derogatory information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Pie does not deprive one of basic human dignity. As Skomorokh notes, pieing is a direct action. I would suggest a compromise regarding those who feel there is a WP:BLP concern. The list should be restricted to individuals who have articles independent of their having been pied. If we include everyone who has been demonstrably pied the list would lose its point, and already includes too many irrelevant piefaces. --JayHenry (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Current article does not show criteria for inclusion; thus as it is, any person who was hit by a pie would be eligible for inclusion (we'll "overlook" the one entry of someone being hit by salad dressing, which, the last time I checked, was not a pie). As a result, this article would always be incomplete and impossible to maintain. B.Wind (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Many lists on Wikipedia will always be incomplete. That's why there's a standardized template to put at the top of the list. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That in itself is a nonissue. The more important one is the inclusion criteria for the list - there are none listed in the article, this making the issue of inclusion a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, there is no indication as to whether the contestants of Double Dare who were pied would be included, or virtually the entire cast of The Great Race or much of the cast of Blazing Saddles (amongst other motion pictures and television programs) would also be listed (and why or why not). The purpose of the {{Incomplete}} template is bring to attention that an incomplete article should be brought to completion, not to identify or justify an article that would be impossible to be complete (which, by the way, is grounds for deletion). As the list article exists, it either violates the WP:NPOV policy or the guideline that indicates that an article that is impossible to complete shouldn't be kept. B.Wind (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This list was forked from the pieing article, which very explicitly discusses pieing in a political sense, the criteria from the list are implied from the article. The context is crystal clear. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Questionwhere did you find the guideline that said if an article is impossible to complete it should be deleted. I just have never run by that one, and find it waaaaaaaaayyyyyy to ambiguous (can any article really be complete?) granted I am ignoring your blatent "either or" fallicy in logic which can be addressed after you answer this question.

I agree with Scarpy. This concern is purely hypothetical. In actuality there's no ambiguity in this list, and thus we can conclude that the inclusion criteria is clear, if not yet articulated. The distinction is between people who are pied as some sort of consensual entertainment and people who are not complicit in their pieing but rather were targeted as a form of direct action. As with everything on Wikipedia, we can depend on reliable sources to make the determination for us. That which can't be resolved with reliable sources (a minority of the cases, if any) should simply be removed. The distinction between pieing qua culture jamming and qua slapstick is never ambiguous (although prohibiting the inclusion of people without articles would make this yet clearer). --JayHenry (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the {{Incomplete}} template, but rather {{Dynamic list}}, which is for lists that can never be made complete (examples include List of Jewish anarchists, List of composers of African descent, and List of record labels). Where is the policy that says such lists can be deleted simply because they can't be made complete? Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists indicates (correctly) that Wikipedia will always have incomplete lists. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Valid topic per Wikipedia:Lists. Well-sourced article, notable topic and verifiable by reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- Hats off to Scarpy for his or her research. I am concerned that some of the BLP arguments are distortions of BLP's intent. Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Alientraveller. I don't care if it has 6,000 sources; having a pie thrown at one may generate a short burst of coverage, but its lasting impact is almost always zero, and if greater, can always be included in that individual's biography. Biruitorul (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, blatant advertising. Blueboy96 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media Two

Media Two (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This could probably be speedied as spam (sole editor User:Mediatwo) but bringing it over to give it benefit of the doubt. Spammy and fairly blatant advertising, and I can't personally see any way it could be cleaned up, and the company doesn't appear to be notable enough in their field to warrant their own entry — although I'm more than willing to be persuaded otherwise. — iridescent 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. External links are either company's website or unrelated. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - G11 and G12. It's spam -- plain and simple. It's also a copyvio with over half the article directly copied from their homepage. Granted, the copyright holder almost certainly did the copying themselves, but we can't be assured of that. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Clear consensus forms that named geographical features, such as rivers, are notable. WilliamH (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Izvoru Mic River

Izvoru Mic River (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this river notable enough? I can't find anything on it. Could it possibly be merged to a larger article or list?I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I am inclined to think that all geographical features are notable, in the same way that cities and towns are, in part because I do not want to get into a debate about how many cubic metres per second of flow is necessary before a river is considered notable. The article is sourced to two books or organizations for which no link is provided, but the first one seems to be the government's land survey or land registry office and the second one Romania's institute of hydrology and meteorology, so they both sound reliable. If there is an online atlas of Romania, further details might be available there. Latitude and longitude for both the source and the mouth would be helpful. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:Notability (geography). Named rivers are usually notable. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Named rivers are almost always notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per consensus that geographical places (and features) are notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Find me a non-notable river, I've never heard of one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Places are inherently notable. WilliamH (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koshmo

Koshmo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any information on this village other than finding its name on a map or on a list of villages in Kyrgyzstan. Is it notable enough to have its own article??I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - we normally have articles on all villages and the like. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Places like this are inherently notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per previous editors and WP:Notability (geography). Tnxman307 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. All villages are notable, and verifiability is confirmed by the map and list consulted by the nominator and by GEOnet Names Server. ---Eastmain (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Machocore

Machocore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

None notable genre, seems to be based entirely on original research, just another word with 'core' added to it by someone neonwhite user page talk 18:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Deletecore! as an unsourced neologism that seems to be original research. ~ mazca ^talk 18:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism, unsourced. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced neologism. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the fagcore - per it being neologism, OR and just plain not a real genre. Man I hate how fans of crap like this talk. I can't make sense of what they're saying. Sorry, I speak English, not idiocy/dumbass. "OmG!RoFlmGo! yU Gyz beLeev tHis!!!!! h8 teh rap buTt gr8sp r gud! Whut you? IOAJpksdfapKFP!" Time to pwn some n00bs. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stay on topic. You do not add to this deletion discussion with that kind of talk. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Although google indicates people do use this term, there do not seem to be any reliable sources to back it up. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sufficient notability is established. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Youra

Dan Youra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:PEOPLE. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is supported by three newspaper articles, suggesting continued notability over a period of years. On the other hand, Youra is head of the Olympic Peninsula Travel Association, which is now at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Peninsula Travel Association. --Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: one of the newspaper articles is basically just a promotional feature for a service set up by the subject though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm feelin a little bit picked on here everyone is trying to give my hard work the AXE. I will be working to establish notability and be providing more references. Allot of the material press releases I have are from old news papers but not on the web. How can I use past news articles that predatre the internet to establish notability? Also for those of you who wish to torpedo my work, I would like to request that you offer suggestions as to how it could be made worthey of Wikipedia material rather that just simply touting it as spam or advertising. jwsnyder101 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.4.197 (talk)

It's fine to use newspapers that pre-date the internet so long as they're references properly. Some users have access to LexisNexis so these can be found online in any case. However, note that media coverage should be independent of the subject to establish notability, which press releases are not. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the evidence is a bit weak. Can you find anything else? Bearian (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, editor-in-chief of an apparently includable book, so includable himself. --Oldak Quill 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strawberry Saroyan

Strawberry Saroyan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not satisfy wikipedia criteria for notability of creative professionals. Being the author of one book and a columnist is not sufficient given the requirement that the subject should be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" and should have "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I just don't see it --- contested prod so here we are. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Check the references. They are "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and therefore she's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - my reading of the guidelines is that the work has to be considered significant and or well-known in addition to having multiple reviews. Not just having reviews. Note: "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" -- the *which* implies that both - not just one - are required. I see no evidence that the single publication satisfies the requirement. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The multiple reviews in major publications are precisely what demonstrate that the subject's book is a "significant or well-known work". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. She is a legitimate author with a book out from mega-publisher Random House, which is no small feat. The book has been reviewed in plenty of secondary WP:RS: [4]. She clearly meets WP:BK. A writer doesn't need to have the influence of Hemingway to qualify for a WP article. It's quite sufficient to have a powerhouse publisher and legitimate industry reviews. She's definitely a keeper, with her other publications adding to her notability, and in fact the article should be expanded. Qworty (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• keep notable author. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was moved to project space, redirect tagged with {{db-g6}}. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of sex work types

List of sex work types (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The first edit summary of this article reads "created this page to organize tasks for the sex workers work group". I'm not sure what that means but it sounds either like a joke, or the mistaken creation of an article to fill the task of a WikiProject or task force. The content of this article is too bewildering to be useful, to say the least, and per "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", it should be deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:07, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If this was a newly-created article I'd probably assume good faith by the creator in that they were probably working on cleaning it up. But it's been here a month now and it's still not even clear what the purpose of the page is, and it's generally a big incomplete mess. ~ mazca ^talk 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Move to project space seems like an obvious choice and to me falls under G6 as an uncontroversial housekeeping task. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Move per Dhartung (but without knowing more about wikiprojects, I do not know to where). This would be a useful list to have in project space, but in mainspace... it just isn't encyclopaedic. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Wizardman 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aozora Bunko: A

Aozora Bunko: A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages: Aozora Bunko: B (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: C (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: E (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: H (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: J (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: K (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: L (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: M (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: N (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: O (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: P (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: R (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: S (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: T (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: U (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: W (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: Y (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aozora Bunko: Z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A WP:LIST of texts contained in the Aozora Bunko. While the main topic may be notable, 23 alphabetical lists of the texts contained in it are not. To break WP:OSE, we don't have a list of texts in Project Gutenberg, and for good reason. These individual lists are mostly filled with redlinks and do not have any other pages linking to them. Reywas92^Talk 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - JulesN Talk 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and because there are probably no possible third-party sources for this list. WP:NOTDIRECTORY isn't a criterion for deletion, but it certainly applies in this case. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. wikipedia is not a directory which is certainly a criteria for deletion. It comes under 'Content not suitable for an encyclopedia' at WP:DEL#REASON --neonwhite user page talk 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I thought I'd read that deletion couldn't be based on WP:NOT somewhere, but I can't find it now, so I guess I was wrong about that. Still recommend deletion, though. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to keep such a catalog. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per Project Gutenberg analogy. I would think linking to the Aozora Bunko copy of the text in the article on the text would suffice, if and when an article on the literary work is started. I've gone through five bluelinks-- A through D-- looking for such an example, and every one of them is mis-linked... Dekkappai (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki, hold on - do we have a Wikimedia project for directories of this nature? Like Wiktory or something like that? ViperSnake151 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Agreed that this is, indeed, being a directory of Aozora Bunko texts, in a way that Wikipedia defines itself as not being. It would be a really good idea if, as much as possible, the text could be added as an external link to each article for the works. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As a purely administrative note, shouldn't all of these articles be tagged with the AFD template? Neier (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, they do all need the tag. Every single one of 'em. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm the original creator of those articles. And I believe that the creation was a mistake. I had admitted that a long time ago, and somehow the community decided to keep them for reasons I don't understand. I add, to everything said, that the lists are horribly out of date. Good job for finding them. I have completely forgotten about them. -- Taku (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Breslin

John Breslin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local broadcaster whose only claim to fame is that he promised to strip naked if Ireland won the Eurovision song contest, so fails WP:BIO1E.
Note that the previous AFD referred to someone else BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Article fails to assert any notability beyond the "naked bet" (non)event. Therefore likely fails Wikipedia:BIO#People_notable_only_for_one_event. Guliolopez (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete One bet doesn't make notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The best keep rationale was provided by RGTraynor who provided evidence of some coverage in secondary sources, however this coverage does not seem to be significant and as such the subject fails WP:BIO#Politicians. Absolutely no prejudice against recreation if Harte's notability increases.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Harte

Jimmy Harte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable politician from Letterkenny in County Donegal, Ireland. A local councillor (so not automatically notable per WP:BIO#Politicians), and there is no sign of the substantial coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:BIO's main criteria. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It seems to be notable. It just needs a reference or two. But thats no reason to delete it Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. It needs evidence of notability, per WP:BIO, not just an assertion that he "seems to be notable". Per WP:BIO#Politicians

    Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

    "a reference or two" is not enough: we need substantial coverage, otherwise the article will be deleted, like dozens of other non-notable biographies every week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm pretty confused here. It seems to me that according to WP:BIO#Politicians he is automatically notable. Please remember: members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. As a member of the Donegal County Council, wouldn't this make him clearly covered?--Aldux (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Donegal County Council is not a "provincial legislature" -- it doesn't have the power to pass legislation, and has never had such a power. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a provincial legislature, but a county council is an elected adminstrative body rather than legislative body. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If what you say is true, than it must be immediately made clear at WP:BIO. North Americans and Aussies probably take this simply for granted, as they live in federal states, but in the rest of the world this notion is highly confused and blurred; I myself would have difficulties awnsering if Italian regions are in or out of such a definition.--Aldux (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Surely it's fairly clear that a County council does not pass legislation?
        In any case, there have been plenty of precedents at AFD where it has been accepted that local councillors are not automatically notable: see e.g. Clifford T. Reid and Sahron Haughey. It doesn't mean that councillors cannot be notable, it just means that they need to demonstrate notability in the usual way through substantial coverage in reliable sources: e.g. Daithí Doolan was kept, because such coverage exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I don't know if you're right or wrong, but all the examples you gave me are seriously flawed and inaccurately described. To begin with Daithi Doolean, the motivation for keep wasn't at all the coverage: the closing administrator was very clear: "Regardless of coverage or not, city councilmen from major cities [...] are inherently notable". As for the other two, Clifford T. Reid was a member of the Athy Urban District Council, which means a sub-sub-national elected body; to be sub-national, he would have to be a member of the Kildare County Council, from which the Athy Urban District Council depended; so it was an obvious delete. An obvious delete was also Sahron Haughey, as it also is a sub-sub-national body. To be sub-national, he would have to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.--Aldux (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Look, it's not complicated: Donegal County Council does not pass legislation, so it is not a legislative body, and therefore there is no automatic presumption of notability. That's all; there's no need to get into theological distinctions about whether the existence of the NI Assembly makes district councils in Northern Ireland a lower level of body than district councils in England.
            If you want this article to be kept, it needs evidence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, to demonstrate notability. So far we have evidence that he exist and holds office, but that's not the same as notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. No references other than personal website. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I'm not convinced of the notability of his position either. That being said, there are 22 hits on the Irish Google News. [5].  RGTraynor  16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Thanks for that link. I see several stories which mention Harte, mostly in the context of the elections, but I don't see that he is the subject of any substantial coverage, as required by WP:BIO#Politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Council members don't achieve notability by being on a (community, village, city, or county) council - for that matter, some mayors would have difficulty clearing the notability bar. More is needed here. B.Wind (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments top keep are stronger than those to delete. The fact that as KleenupKre says, the article is not about Schindler, rather a bunch of cases he was involved in, makes this a fairly easy decision. Copyvios also not helping. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David J. Schindler

David J. Schindler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Multiple issues. WP:COATRACK article on non-notable attorney shot through with copyright violations. Justallofthem (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Those were some high-profile cases he prosecuted as an AUSA. I don't see that his private practice has kept him notable, but notability doesn't expire. It's a terrible article, though, and doesn't need to rehash each and every case (assuming that isn't the copyvio part). --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as apparent WP:COPYVIO and WP:COATRACK article. The article is hardly about Schindler at all, it is about several cases he was (somehow) connected to but says little about his actual role in them. Some of those cases are notable and have their own articles, some are not. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He's been mentioned on a few lawblogs just of late in relation to Church of Scientology actions (of themselves notable) ^[1] I only found this page because I was checking to see if he had a bio page to update accordingly. (but remove all the crud) Can the copyright violations please be pointed out on the talk page. Jaymax (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Being involved with semi-high-profile clients doesn't, by itself, confer notability. If he had advanced some novel argument that others have used successfully since, or had he gotten some client off when nobody thought it was possible, perhaps...but I don't see notability here.  Frank  |  talk  17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An attorney's clients do not make one notable per se; a lawyer must be in the news himself or herself to be notable. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, seems to be significant. Article needs to be cleaned up and copyvio text removed. --Oldak Quill 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fist Of Dishonor

Fist Of Dishonor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Fist of Dishonor dress up as ninjas, fight audience members, and play rock songs..." Is that cool or what? Kids nowadays! In their endeavors they have garnered a tiny bit of attention, such that they might marginally qualify under WP:MUSIC criteria 1 for bands, "Subject of multiple non-trivial published works" per the references at the bottom of the article. I suspect that they don't qualify, but I hope they do: if Wikipedia can't have articles about bands that dress up as ninjas and fight audience members, what ultimately do we stand for? Herostratus (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Their show must be a lot of fun, but they don't meet basic notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, though that vote makes me sad. The world needs more bands like this but the only decent source is pretty weak and this really doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. ~ mazca ^talk 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete:the band fails notability, and also seems unencyclopedic though edits could be made I still lean toward delete. Dwilso 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable bandJasynnash2 (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable and unencyclopedic. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete; interesting but not very notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitardude3600 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. This is a large, regional sports association and the consensus was that it is sufficiently notable to be kept. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Texas Soccer Association

From speedy, seems borderline to me at worst. I don't know if entities like this are considered notable or not. Has existed since 1964. Website here. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Not much of an article, but the website says that 175,000 players are currently registered in its 123 member programs, that it's been in existence for more than 40 years, and that it has publications, making it unusually large for a sports organization. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - there are plenty of articles for the English County Football Associations, and I don't see why this is any less notable. Bettia ^(talk) 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EQATEC Profiler

EQATEC Profiler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software, just released. Weregerbil (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—(I'm the author) Agree to lack of software's notability. The issue of .NET CF code-profiling has, however, much merit as the lack of any available code-profiler has been eagerly discussed at least since 2003. This article describes the current state of affairs, but I agree that a more suitable article topic would have been e.g. "Performance analysis tools for .NET CF". That topic may not warrant an entire article, though, as there are unfortunately very few such tools available for those brave souls doing embedded programming on .NET Compact Framework. Ricflams (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No support of independent reliable sources to establish notability of new software package. B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was snow delete. This was previously speedied under two other titles--Sovereign Kingdom of Kemetia and King Adam of Kemetia. Author Hemmings (talk · contribs) has been blocked as well, as he has no constructive contributions whatsoever.

[edit] King Adam

King Adam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A kid who invented his own country. Deprodded. Weregerbil (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - sheesh, what detail. Still non-notable though. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - he's had fun, but Wikipedia is not for a kingdom made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hyperspeed Delete - This goes beyond Speedy Delete. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for what I hope are obvious reasons. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure this guy could do better things with his imagination than making a doomed Wikipedia article. ~ mazca ^talk 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Almost 19 years old, probably lives at parents' house, and probably doesn't own any land, let alone a kingdom. Good luck to you, Mr. Hemmings; I hope at least that you've got a job flipping burgers so you have some spending money. Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm avoiding the temptation to drop Monty Python references here. Just delete it. Hilarious reading, though. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, "He has'nt released any of his own work yet but critics say that it will be worth the wait." We'll wait. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] K-Deuce

K-Deuce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable rapper — speedy tag was removed by creator FCSundae (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, makes no claim no notability. "Anticipated mixtape" release. Weregerbil (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. Warhorus (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an A7, no assertion of notability. ~ mazca ^talk 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Aurocks

The result was Redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Aurocks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems hoaxy, or otherwise confused with Aurochs, which a page already exists for PirateMink 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC) PirateMink 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—The word Aurocks gets a number of hits in Google books, so it appears valid. It is probably an alternate spelling, in which case a redirect to Auroch would be appropriate.—RJH (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Auroch, appears to be what the article means. Not an entirely unlikely (mis-)spelling variant. Weregerbil (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Aurochs. (Auroch is itself a redirect}. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Much One Hit Wonders

Much One Hit Wonders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable album - no reviews, no third party sources, no album art. MuchMusic is notable, and almost nothing here is a red link, but I don't see any standalone notability for this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable compilation album. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - article cites no sources. Searches indicate that there are no independent, reliable, third-party sources available. No means to assert notability of subject. Fails the notability guidelines Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not "Much" of an article. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Found to be non notable, per WP:ATHLETE. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Gause

George Gause (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:ATHLETE this person has never played in a professional game and is therefore not notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: He does play for the colts, but still not notable enough. Dwilso 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: He does not have any professional stats; even if he's technically on the roster of the Colts. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Despite his theoretical attachment to a highly notable team, he doesn't appear to have done anything at all with them. I'd say he's completely non-notable until he actually plays, at the very least. ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - he played for NFL Europe, which was the highest level of American football in Europe, thus meeting WP:BIO. --B (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: He may have been on the roster, but there is no record of him actually competing. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the policy says "competed" -- not played. Does this matter? Bearian (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) See the discussion here: [6]. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Played = competed; let's not split hairs here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carvoeiro, Azores

Carvoeiro, Azores (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no such place as "Carvoeiro" in the Azores. It is unclear why it was created in the first place. Since it only links to a list of real places, and nothing links to it, it should be deleted to reduce confusion. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I am also nominating the following related page because it is just another version of the first page ("Azores Islands" rather than "Azores"):

Carvoeiro, Azores Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect both to Corvo, Azores, which is located on Corvo Island. It may be what they were thinking about in the first place. It doesn't appear that these were ever anything but incorrect redirects to the Carvoeiro disambiguation page, until someone wrote "There is no places named Carvoeiro in the Azores." for both articles. Corvo, Carvoeiro, potato, potahto, redirects are cheap Mandsford (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I find it extremely unlikely for someone to type either of these titles whens searching for the Corvo Island. Unnecessary re-target. Húsönd 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• If the entry is Corvo, then there should be a Corvo page (there may be -- I haven't looked), but there is no reason in Portuguese to link Carvoeiro to Corvo. Let's just start clean with Corvo, and leave the re-direct out of it. (Certainly there was no link from the old Carvoeiro, Azores nor of the Carvoeiro [conselho of Lagoa] to Corvo.) It's like have a redirect from Toronto to Turin (Italy) or Torun (Poland).... I still argue for deletion.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural question. Shouldn't this discussion be at RfD rather than AfD? Both of these pages were created as redirects rather than articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both. Per nom. Húsönd 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete & redirect to Subatomic particle Black Kite 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Atomic

Sub Atomic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• wipe and redirect The article fails WP:N and should be redirected Subatomic particle as Subatomic is already directed there.--Pmedema (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this trance project which has no evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC, and redirect the page to Subatomic particle as Pmedema suggests. ~ mazca ^talk 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler King (American Football)

Tyler King (American Football) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:ATHLETE this person has never played in a professional game and therfore is not notable - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Undrafted free agent, never played a regular-season NFL game, nothing notable about his college career. --Finngall ^talk 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thinking delete however, if he actually played a game for Rhein Fire than he meets notability criteria for playing at the "top level". Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - NFL Europe is the highest level of American football in Europe and he did play for the Rhein Fire. Even if he hadn't, there is nothing that says that a player has to play in a regular season game to be notable. NFL players are notable period. --B (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The policy is not clear - it says "compete", not "play". Bearian (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC) I've started a discussion here [7]. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In American football (as in most team sports), one cannot compete if he cannot play in a game. B.Wind (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete for now. No prejudice against recreation if/when....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Franks

Stanley Franks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Undrafted rookie NFL free agent. Non-notable college career, no notability per WP:ATHLETE. A7 speedy was declined. There should be no prejudice against recreation if he actually makes the team and plays in a game. --Finngall ^talk 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete but, place relevant information in the "undrafted" section of the 2008 NFL Draft article. Not yet played at the highest level but, very well may come the preseason. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for now. If he becomes notable, bring back the article. (Hits exist but only in the context of game play, college bio, or draft status...nothing establishing notability.)  Frank  |  talk  11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not yet there. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Vinnedge

Billy Vinnedge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:ATHLETE, this individual has not yet played in a professional game and therefore is not notable - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Actually, I think it deserves to be kept. First of all, he has "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (from WP:ATHLETE). Also, there is a good chance he will play in an NFL game at some point, and then this article will just be created again. Noble Story (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I now concurr with Fingall. Noble Story (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice against recreation if he actually makes the team and plays. I've been speedy tagging quite a number of other articles on other undrafted free agent rookies by the same author, and most have been confirmed. Only a small percentage of these guys actually see the field in a regular season game, and until they do, they aren't notable. --Finngall ^talk 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete but, place relevant information in the "undrafted" section of the 2008 NFL Draft article. Not yet played at the highest level but, very well may come the preseason Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). A merger can be dicussed on the talk page, but would require consensus to implement. Sandstein (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NAFTA's Impact on US Employment

NAFTA's Impact on US Employment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay article that has come from a project that seems to specifically adding essays to Wikipedia at User:Globalecon/Global Economics. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Actually, I think this is not so bad an article, comparatively. It may need to be merged with the main NAFTA page, but I would say that just because it is part of the ill-fated school project doesn't mean it should be deleted. Noble Story (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• merge relevant details to main NAFTA page Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it's notable enough to keep as a main article. Noble Story (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- It looks as good as a normal Wikipedia article and contains useful information. At the most we should merge but deletion would be such a waste of information... and time. -- penubag  (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Another Comment It seems to me that after so many bad articles were created by the school project, there is now a backlash against other any new articles created. In reality, I think that if this was a "normal" new article, it would be kept. Noble Story (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Noble Story on this. -- penubag  (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or at the very most merge. This is a useful, well written article, properly referenced, unlike most of the (absolutely dire) ones produced by the GlobalEcon school project so far. It just needs some wikifying. I entirely concur with Noble Story's comments re judging each article on its own merit and avoiding backlash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and either merge or rename. Merging may be undesired, since the main NAFTA article is large enough, and merging this well referenced information back into the article would be against WP:SUMMARY. The name may need to be tweaked, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Properly sourced with significant coverage. Motive is not a reason to get rid of an otherwise acceptable article. Jim Miller (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a reasonable article. It's a subarticle from the main NAFTA page, so a merge might be undesirable as Jayron32 says. I think this just needs some cleanup. Compared to the rest of the stuff to emerge from that class, this is quite good). Bfigura ^(talk) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm surprised to agree, but this is a reasonable stab at an article that fits into the project. I suspect it would be better titled and scoped as Effects of NAFTA in the United States or something like that. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• KeepSeems ok. Most of the sources are garbage, though. I guess that is what you get when you are looking for the two extreme viewpoints on NAFTA. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Really belongs in the NAFTA page, surely; based upon the usefulness of a page on the effects of the impact upon US Employment, if page kept as is, you could argue that pages based detailing "impact upon country X" should also be created. Given the driving point is the NAFTA agreement, which has a page, relevant, sourced information from this page should be merged there, given it's a direct cause/effect relationship. Minkythecat (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment And if sources could be found for those pages (impact on x), and NAFTA was deemed to have a notable impact on employment there, I wouldn't see the harm in creating the artices. At present, this is a sub-page of the NAFTA article, so merging back probably isn't needed per WP:SUMMARY. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I was just going to say the same thing as Bfigura. Plus, the NAFTA article is already quite long. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: One of the poster children for the innate lack of merit of the insta-AfD approach. Given that the subject's been on the lips of every populist politician since NAFTA was created, to suggest that the subject is unencyclopedic is mind-boggling. Let's give this some time, perhaps?  RGTraynor  16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the article works for me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge whatever's salvageable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for this to be withdrawn now since it's obviously going to be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] P.I.P.O.

P.I.P.O. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced neologism, no evidence that it is widely used, reported on, ... WP:NEO says it all, basically. And it fails WP:V as well, of course. Fram (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• delete not notable, belongs in dictionary not hereJasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much the stereotypical neologism article: term invented just this year, not in widespread use, no sources. Even a dictionary wouldn't accept this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NEO - I would say this article should P.I.P.O, no ? --Triwbe (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NEO --Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism.--Berig (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. JuJube (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B.I.O. Bug

B.I.O. Bug (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article which does not assert notability, and reads more like an advert than an encyclopedia article -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The first three paragraphs are taken directly from here Noble Story (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• delete seems a pretty non-notable toy. The article hasn't really been fixed since it was first created. per the above comment (which unfortunately isn't signed) it is also copyvio. Also the New York Times article that reports on sales figures is behind some kind of wall.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While some of their products - such as Robosapien and arguably the Dragonfly - may well be notable, this one was probably only notable in terms of the company's history and Mark Tilden's involvement. The NYT article is good, and discusses it in considerable length, but in essence the article is about why the toy was unsuccessful. - Bilby (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iuput II

Iuput II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

this page, like many others created or edited by User talk:Egyptzo, is basically copyvio from [8] and [9], deleting the copyvio will leave virtually nothing. I'm too busy clearing up other stuff to work on it (user is banned for 48 hours for other copyvio--Doug Weller (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

• delete as copyvio. The article may be relevant and useful to people and the subject may be notable enough for his own article but, it is copyvio. Maybe when, the user returns we could encourage him to use the things he is copying as sources to create legit articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep with major revisions. This king existed and there is a legitimate image of him by Captmondo. The article can be preserved but there must be major corrections done to it to remove the copyright violations. I'll try to reduce it to a stub and give appropriate references. Leoboudv (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• keep Provided 7 genuine references and removed copyvio. Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• keep Egyptzo is well known for this sort of thing, but the subject matter is real enough. I also trust Leoboudv to come up with real citations & re-write what is legitimate. Captmondo (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, it was rewritten and bears no resemblance to the copied text now. – Alensha ^talk 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per the changes made to the article. Please someone that knows how to do the crossline thing on my earlier input. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominators concerns have been addressed so there is now no reason to delete this. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm happy now. Impressed even that Leoboudv could salvage it! Thanks. Do I need to do something now? --Doug Weller (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WowWee

WowWee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article that would need some serious work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards - it currently reads more like an advert. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• weak keep article definitely needs work and some of it reads like an advertisement (particularly recent stuff about the buyout) but, it does seem to meet notability requirements and is covered alot on what seem to be tech and business sites. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable company that certainly merits an article on Wikipedia - it has been heavily covered in the press and other reliable sources. Admittedly, the article needs a lot of work, but AfD isn't for cleanup. - Bilby (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - if there are so many reliable sources about this allegedly notable company, why has the article not had a single reference added in the four years that it has existed? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - you're right, it should have been fixed. In fact, I'd been looking for that article before, and was disappointed by how little was there. Sorry for being a bit short. I'll see if I can improve the article tonight by adding some references and stuff, and hopefully that will help. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I've rewritten the article to remove copyvio (which there was a lot of) and to add references in order to establish notability. It is just a start, but it is the best I can do tonight, and I hope that it is, at least, a well referenced start. :) The best of the sources available online was one of the NYT articles. - Bilby (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure: G7: author has blanked the page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adult Stars Magazine

Adult Stars Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable porn magazine - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Strong delete. There's nothing to indicate that its notable at all. It was also speedily deleted three times before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE" This wikipedia entree is informative and their is plenty of info on the net to back up all the entree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter789 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete As per the first comment. And if anything, the above comment just makes my delete stronger. Noble Story (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete non-notable spam article. Lots of "informative" articles get deleted on a regular basis. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Do Not Remove I have been a fan of this magazine for years. I don't see the problem? I was going to add to the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfromtheburg (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — Davidfromtheburg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let me just say welcome to Davidfromtheburg. It's nice to see that new users can find AfD so easily and enter into discussions. I'd like to suggest you have a look at some of the policies and criteria we will be discussing in this debate so that you can help to improve not only this article but, the project as a whole. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP I dont see what all the hub bub is about? Its just like everything else on wikipedi. Its fine to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherrybabyfla (talk • contribs) — Sherrbabyfla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wow, another user whose only edit is on this discussion...--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I am emailing the creator and posting a message to his talk page about meatpuppetry. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

*Keep I can see that Cobaltbluetony and cyberghostface have team up to delete this article. Good job guys. I hope Wikipedia does better than that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter789 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You already voted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: First, you only get one "vote" here. Second, I opened this up to the public here as you requested and you initiated meatpuppetry by inviting Sherrbabyfla and Davidfromtheburg. They are not users who are familiar with our guidelines and policies, and cannot be expected to immediately understand the purpose of the project here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability... no sources... no way we should keep it! As an aside to some of the comments above - this isn't a vote, we're trying to achieve consensus. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see any use for this article, bad references. Dwilso 16:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, spam, etc.Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Its amazing that this article is getting so much attention compared to everything else today. Cobaltblueltony has gotten his friends together to comment and to delete a legitimate article for wikipedia. What make this article different than any thing else? I hope this is not the way Wikipedia is ran - by dictators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.238.163 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 76.110.238.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB, no sources. I give it zero stars. Jim Miller (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JimMillerJr. Epically fails WP:WEB and is totally unsourced. ~ mazca ^talk 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dekkappai (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:WEB. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. I found one, at best two, WP:RS mentions. Just enough to verify that they are a real website. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• comment Baxter and an anon between them seem to have just deleted the entire content of the article, including the Afd notice. I restored the text and the notice. I have no comment on the article, but that's not the way to "discuss" it. DGG (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete By being the primary author of the information Baxter blanking the page means that it meets criteria for speedy deletion. Or that is my understanding. I don't know how to cross out my earlier comments so if someone would be kind enough to do it for me that would be great. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - that doesn't apply. CSD:G7 (Author requests deletion) only applies if "the page's only substantial content was added by its author" which isn't the case. Looking at the history of the page it appears that CobaltBlueTony started the page, but 76.110.238.163 and Baxter789 have both contributed as well. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Cobalt didn't create the page. The page had been blocked to prevent recreation, and the original author told him to bring it back so the public could decide.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • exactly the reason I made my comment. As I don't have access to admin tools I wasn't able to verify but, I understood that CobaltBlueTony had brought it "back at the author's request". If Baxter789 or the IP isn't the original author than my apologies are extended. Otherwise, I think it still would meet the criteria I stated, especially when you note that Baxter789 created his userpage with the article in question as shown here [10]. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Works for me. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, with a possible Merge in order. (that's for the talkpages - don't need afd for that) Either way, no advocates for deletion presently. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FlyTech Dragonfly

FlyTech Dragonfly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is more like an advert than a serious encyclopedia article -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There are links to two reviews (I question the reliability of one, but the other is from The New York Times). I've found three reviews on tech sites, a (somewhat brief) review in Time, and an article in Popular Mechanics, all of which are specifically about this product. (I'm a tad iffy about depth of coverage, but how much do you expect? It's a toy.) That said, this article desperately needs a major rewrite. AnturiaethwrTalk 15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge May I suggest we be bold on this and all the other WowWee related articles up for deletion. Let's get Bold together and merge them into one non-spammy article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as per Jasynnash2, fix JediLofty's justified criticism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. There are plenty of great cites in the article. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, interesting, mentioned in significant press. --Oldak Quill 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted A7 non-notable; pre-high schools are not notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middlebrook Middle School

Middlebrook Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unnotable middle school, even if all the silliness is removed from this joke article created by a vandalism only account. Collectonian (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - I've added a speedy tag, this page is mostly nonsense and non-notability. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cameron McIntyre (Coronation Street)

Cameron McIntyre (Coronation Street) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extremely minor child character from the UK soap Coronation Street who appeared in the show for two weeks in 2006, participating in no major storylines whatsoever, and has never re-appeared. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not enough information to keep.DGG (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nom says it all. Character is obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Warden Can Suck It

Mike Warden Can Suck It (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC: no substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No WP:RS and even the non-reliable sources are few. Maybe even a speedy delete here. --Pmedema (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for failing verification. No real suggestion of notablity either Bfigura ^(talk) 23:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No WP:RS and even non-reliable sources are nonexistent. Think a speedy delete is in order. --WENCESLAV (talk) 1:23, 02 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Brooke Hogan. --jonny-mt 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brooke Hogan Demo CD

Brooke Hogan Demo CD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC: demos are generally not notable unless there is substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Brooke Hogan. Not notable enough for own article.Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Brooke Hogan. Not enough notability to stay in separate article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not an album purchasable by the general public and for internal label consideration only. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, it is an unreleased demo. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Brooke Hogan - unreleased demo by someone most known for her father and their participation in a reality television program. B.Wind (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Brooke Hogan. Next to no chance of finding suitable sources. Redirects are cheap.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 May 2008

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

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

The result was Merge to Rammstein discography. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rammstein (album)

Rammstein (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC: demos are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to main band article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Rammstein discography Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Rammstein as non-charting demo albums don't reach the bar of WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted (non-admin closure). Article was speedily deleted per CSD A7 by Aleta because it didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. WilliamH (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berkshire (Band)

Berkshire (Band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

notability is in doubt Appraiser (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Young Diaspora of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Young Diaspora of Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is of questionable notability and article is written like an advert. Has been tagged as such for almost three months. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find anything to demonstrate notability. Article creator is an SPA; likely trying to promote the group. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources. WillOakland (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] WVQZ

The result was Delete (non-admin closure), unanimous delete based on lack of evidence of existence and suspected hoax. Rtphokie (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not too keen on non-admins closing discussions as delete (see WP:DELPRO#NAC), but I endorse the call here. --jonny-mt 05:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WVQZ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable radio station. Is written like an ad at times (its written in the first person). Obvious WP:COI at hand here as well, as the main contributer is "Hot103" which is also the name of the company. Its only source so far is their MySpace. Speedy was declined, and the creator removed the PROD, so I'm nominating it here. CyberGhostface (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I changed the first-person usage to third-person. I would normally say that this is an automatic keep because all licenced radio and television stations that originate their own programming are notable, but the station isn't listed at the Federal Communications Commission database or in some other databases of radio stations, perhaps because it only started broadcasting earlier this month. So there's a chance that this is a hoax. If the station's existence can be verified, though, I will change my !vote to keep. --Eastmain (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep For a hoax, it's pretty elaborate. However, the database indicates that there is no 105.3 FM broadcasting in the Greensboro/Winston-Salem area. I guess the "15 watts" should have been a clue. True, as a general rule, FCC-licensed radio stations are considered to be inherently notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. But as others have pointed out, this isn't an FCC-licensed radio station. Mandsford (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm with Eastmain- FCC licensed stations are inherently notable, but this one isn't showing up in an FCC FM query, making me think it's a hoax. The station's myspace points out that the call letters changed slightly with a station move (notice in the article the lead and article title don't match), but neither the old or new callsign shows up as licensed. As the nom pointed out, pretty blatantly created by someone looking to promote this. I'd say keep if the station's existence can be confirmed, but this looks like a hoax. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice It is possible that that the FCC has not updated their db (it can take a bit) but I can't find any record of the company, station, anything related to this other than a photobucket account with logos and stuff. Methinks it is a hoax spryde | talk 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: You would also think that a new radio station would be significant enough to receive some coverage, any coverage, in the local press. This station is allegedly based in the same county as Greensboro, and the Greensboro News-Record has no record of this station [11].  RGTraynor  13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Smells like a hoax to me. No FCC record for this callsign, low power or otherwise. Website is a "make your own website online" which is a bit suspect as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hold for a period of ten days in order to give the FCC and/or Radio-Locator databases time to be updated. As an LPFM, there may be a delay in adding these call letters to the databases. I would say that if a search of both databases on 5/9 does not show these call letters, then delete. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I see no reason to wait beyond the normal AFD period. The original author has been blocked indefinitely based on creation of this article. All signs point to this being a hoax.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hold after lots of cleanup, schedule removal, logo addition, and the usual polish I'm not convinced that this is a real radio station. (Protests that "we're a real radio station!" on their MySpace page, notwithstanding.) I can find no record of WVZQ or WVQZ, the station history laid out on the MySpace page makes no sense, and I'm leaning towards "hoax" but am willing to let it ride out a few days to see if the FCC does add it as an LPFM (but I'm not betting on it). Per InDeBiz1, if it's not there by May 9 then delete as hoax. - Dravecky (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax, after more research appears not to exist as a licensed station. - Dravecky (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment One hoaxy thing I noticed earlier is that they supposedly moved dial positions, changing their call letters in the process, but the old letters don't register either. Is it really plausible that the station moved when it was so new that the FCC had yet to update the database? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• FYI From the maintainer of that database:

Each day, at about 6 AM.  A change in CDBS shows up the next day.
Dale Bickel  dale.bickel@fcc.gov

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:50 PM
To: Dale Bickel
Subject: FCC DB question
How often is the database available at
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html updated?  How long would it take
for a newly licensed station or callsign change to show up there?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because there is nothing to merge. As noted by Kransky, Vanuatu does not appear to have any actual trade missions. Feel free to install a redirect under this title, though. Sandstein (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trade missions of Vanuatu

Trade missions of Vanuatu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

article content forks Diplomatic missions of Vanuatu. Vanuatu has no overseas trade missions, the Canberra link goes to an irrelevant page. Deletion request was previously incorrectly listed. Kransky (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge I'm not sure that a trade mission would fit under the title "Diplomatic missions", but both are very short, and should be combined, possibly under a new name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge: to Foreign relations of Vanuatu. There's already a discussion up to merge "Diplomatic missions" into "Foreign relations."  RGTraynor  13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There we go. I didn't catch that because there's no mergeto on the diplomatic relations article; I'll add one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Foreign relations of Vanuatu Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For those wanting to keep or merge the contents of this article, please realise Vanuatu has NO trade missions abroad. None. Zip. Nada. The link to the sole "trade mission" is actually an advertisement for Australian building and construction companies to attend a three day trade show in 2007 in Vanuatu. Also note that with the 188 Diplomatic Missions by Country articles commerical offices and honorary diplomatic missions are not included. Kransky (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanuatu doesn't have any diplomatic missions or offices abroad, no need to merge something that doesn't exist. Aquintero (talk) 14:30, 1 May, 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect. Lara❤Love 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audi A4 S Line

Audi A4 S Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• DELETE - Not Notable - The "S line" is merely a trim level, and is available on nearly all Audi cars in their range. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure -- Teutonic Tamer 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Audi A4 as a valid search term. I'd agree that it's not notable enough for any separate article. Erechtheus (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect It may be a copyvio of one of the many auto sites out there; either way, it's not individually notable but it is a valid search term, so redirect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sequoia diangelo

Sequoia diangelo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted through A7, but I want to run this though AfD. My opinion is still delete: it doesn't look like the subject passes WP:BIO and the references are a bit ropey. Marasmusine (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Di Angelo is a notable actress in Australia and New Zealand and is currently filming Destiny in Love with Peter Hyams. Once the film is released I have no doubt her popularity and fan base will increase in America...why not start it now? User:ForActing2 30 April 2008

• WP:SCRABBLE neatly explains why. Marasmusine (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The references are ropey indeed. Of seven "references" provided, two are unverifiable personal communications, two seem to be about her father's career and merely mention her in passing, one is from YouTube, one is concerned with her high-school wrestling abilities, and the statements of her modeling/acting agency don't seem to me to be reliable sources. Perhaps this young individual will be more notable at a later stage of her career. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments. Should the article be kept, it needs to be renamed per WP:NAME. Also, at least three other articles about the same subject (as "Sequoia Di Angelo") have been speedily deleted on 30 April 2008. B.Wind (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I originally speedied this a couple of times due to what I perceived as a lack of assertion of any notability, but even if that's debatable I think it's clear as nom says that this fails WP:BIO. There really are no sources, and just to give some indication the subject's IMDB entry is simply a resume that shows no roles which are even remotely notable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced. Smells promotional. Recreate if independent secondary sources are found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We Are The Ocean

We Are The Ocean (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This unknown unsigned band fails WP:MUSIC. The only claim that even arguably rises to the level of assertion of notability (a tour) is not supported by any reliable source. The band isn't even signed. Erechtheus (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable band. Sources are band's personal pages and band is not signed with a label. I'm hard-pressed to see how this meets WP:MUSIC. Tnxman307 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Seems notable to me. I think it fairly WP:POV to say that the band is unknown. WP:Music says "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." I think been on several radio stations and magazines is classed as "subject of a broadcast by a media network" therefore is Notable according to wikipedia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that they would be notable if they were in a magazine, or on several radio stations. However, the article's sources simply go to their personal website or myspace page. Is there a link to the magazine article? Tnxman307 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes here http://www2.kerrang.com/2008/02/kerrang_magazine_27022008.html (It is reference number 3 on the article btw) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That tells us absolutely nothing about the depth of any coverage they may have received, much less serves as any sort of citation appropriate of a reliable source. Erechtheus (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does seem like they're on their way to notability but not quite there yet. If it can be established that they were in rotation on BBC1 rather than just the occasional spin, or if tour coverage can be found, I would mostly likely change my mind. Certainly calling them "unknown" is a bit over the top; also, being signed is not a pre-requisite for inclusion on Wikipedia. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'd agree. I'm almost certain I meant to write "unsigned", not "unknown". My mistake. Erechtheus (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A fairly classic non-notable-band case to me. Although they have their own website (not just a MySpace), the two reasons I see for lack of notability per WP:MUSIC is that they haven't received much third-party media coverage from notable/reliable sources, as well as not being signed to any record label. A pretty extensive Google search doesn't prove otherwise, either. After the band gets some more media coverage, I wouldn't be opposed to recreation; but at this point they're simply not notable enough for Wikipedia. --JamieS93 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Since they did tour with a notable band, i would say keep.Guitardude3600 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 by DGG after its main contributor blanked the page in response to the AfD nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David W. DeVore

David W. DeVore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a biography that does not indicate using verifiable sources any notability for the subject. Worse, it is apparently written by the subject's wife. Speedy declined by user who chose not to offer any helpful rationale. Erechtheus (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable musician bio. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Original research (Synthesis of published material). This has been pointed several times in the discussion and never contested (it was claimed that the individual events are notable but that is not the point as articles about them exist). I also note that as much as I can get from the title and date of *all* of the references and bibliography cited, they are about each individual event not about the whole set of events. - Nabla (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic cleansing in Croatia

Ethnic cleansing in Croatia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Anti-Croat sentiment

• Delete-Article is full of POV statements against Croatia and Croats which are writen without any sources. Even few sources which are given we can't trust. For example I will use census numbers given in this articles how Croats has created with Ethnic cleansing enhnicly pure Croatia in which 95 % of population are Croats. Only problem with this data is that in Croatia there is 89.9 % of Croats which can be seen in article Croatia and CIA country page. Difference between numbers in this article and older history is much greater. It is possible that article has been edited by puppet of banned user:Velebit which can be see from history of his edits IP 217.57.46.126 and user Velebit other puppet user:NovaNova or his suspected banned puppet user:Stagalj. Creation of this article has not been noticed earlier because if has been created with only edit of SPA account.--Rjecina (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The nom made an edit to this before nominating it; looks pretty interesting: [12] Particularly, toward the bottom, content was removed, and more than one reference. That is way, way too many {{fact}} and {{dubious}} tags BTW; when there are that many concerns, use an article-wide tag. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: There are numerous articles based around ethnic cleansing and atrocities on Wikipedia. Despite nom's assertions, the article gives numerous sources (although lacking inline citations). That the nom - a native Croatian, I note, according to the talk page - does not like the sources is plain, but that does not constitutes a valid deletion ground, and few editors, for example, would deny that an official United Nations report meets reliable source standards. Finally, nom fails to give any valid deletion ground; being "anti-Croat" is not found in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.  RGTraynor  13:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - have reverted to version prior to noms changes. The article does seem to be very POV and needs work towards neutrality. I'll have a go in a minute but, am in no way an expert. In the meantime I think it meets the notability requirements and probably has more than suffient 3rd party sources.Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I've tried to compare a number of earlier versions and tried making it more neutral. I've compared with Ethnic Cleansing and with Yugoslav wars. I'd like to change my weak keep above to Merge relevant factual information can be placed in the above two articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment 1 thing is to not like sources other thing is if sources are real and NPOV. Nobody will question ethnic cleansing in WWII but number of milion is typical Serbian fundamentalism because only Serbian right extremist accept this number. On other side USHMM is claiming between 330,000 and 390,000 victims Jasenovac in today Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.
  • Then there is claim about ethnic cleansing in 1991-95 and how all Serbs are expelled. Creator of this article know very good that this is false because rebel government of Croatian Serbs has given order to all population to leave Croatia and go to Bosnian or Serbian exile ( [13] and Human Right Watch)
  • In article is writen how Dalmatia there has been 400,000 Italians and half of the rest are Serbs and the rest were Catholic Dalmatians. Small check with reality ! In article Kingdom of Dalmatia we are having Austrian census from 1880 and data are:Croats 371,655 ,Serbs 78,714 and Italians 27,305 so number of 400,000 Italians then in past or future of this data is not possible. I can write few pages about false data in this article but there is no point. Because of this false data article need to be deleted. For all my tags there has been reasons (false data or POV statements)--Rjecina (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ok, we have here an article of very bad quality used primarily as a vent for the nationalism of radical Serb and Italian users. The article mentions 3 instances of "ethnic cleansing" while using the term extremely loosely. These are: the foibe massacres, Operation Storm, and WW2 Nazi genocide that took place in occupied Yugoslavia. What's the problem?

1) The foibe massacres were simply not ethnic cleansing. They were retribution against fascists, not Italians or people of any other particular ethnicity. To say they were organized by anyone for the removal of Italians from Istria is pure speculation on the part of the more interested users. Also, one may argue that Croatia did not exist at the time at all, being still an integral part of occupied Yugoslavia.

One would also do well to remember that a LOT more fascist Croats were massacred not far away (see Bleiburg massacre), which says something about the "ethnic criteria" the Partisans used. Also, the majority of the Italians left Istria 5 years (or later) after the foibe massacres, while the numbers here are too small to constitute ethnic cleaning on their own.

2) Operation Storm. There is currently a careful discussion taking place on Talk:Serbs of Croatia that will determine first the reliability of sources on this matter, and then the matter itself (using mostly UN sources). One can read about this complicated and controversial matter there. The unfortunate flight of the Serbs took place without any explicite coercion by the Croat forces, and that fear itself was enough to start evacuation. Croats were unable to cross the line due to the NATO assistance they received, no matter what they may or may not have desired. In short, there is no consensus in the international community that this was ethnic cleansing, certainly no corroboration can be found in reliable, UN sources.

3) WW2. Another mess in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was under Nazi occupation at the time and the Germans, Italians, and their local collaborators killed a large number of Jews, Serbs, Roma, and communist or anti-fascist Croats on its territory (Croatia did not exist at the time). The article, however, asserts that the Nazi massacres here, and, by extension, everywhere else in Europe, were ethnic cleansing.

All in all, far from trying to downplay the truly horrific tragedies of this area, it is highly controversial and over-simplifying to simply label them all "ethnic cleansing" and write an article about it. Especially when the article appears to try and depict them all as somehow "linked" to Croatia as a nation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that historians would be interested to hear your assertion that Croatia did not exist in WWII.  RGTraynor  11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that the nom asked for the above user's participation, which isn't a problem necessarily, but I think the comment shows that this is an IDONTLIKEIT nomination: [14] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And decidedly a WP:CANVASS violation to boot, and the nom admitted as much; the "gosh, we need a native Dalmatian who can speak English well in on this" notion is choice. This skirts closely to a bad faith nomination.  RGTraynor  13:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have called DIREKTOR but on other side I am not happy why my tags has been deleted. This tags has showed problems with article. Right question is if this problem can be solved. During March 2008 there has been discussion if POV problems in other article can be solved. Decision has been that problem will never been solved and article is deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serb propaganda in the Yugoslav wars (2nd nomination). I do not understand why this article is different and can somebody please restore my tags so that everybody see what are problems with this article ?--Rjecina (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The "so-called" (as it is referred to officially in Croatia) Independent State of Croatia is not "Croatia", despite its name. It is an unrecognized Nazi puppet state, created during wartime on occupied Yugoslav territory and did not de jure exist. Ethnic cleansing is a legal violation, all ISC war criminals were tried by Yugoslavia for (high) treason.

As for the canvassing, please don't discuss it here. Let's talk about the article instead, and let's stay civil. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Just another one of those loads of dumpy flaming articles dedicated and made in the sole purpose of attack on one ethnic group or nation, instead of rather to the suffering one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a lot more articles like this trying to concentrate in one place all POV material about one dispute or another. The fact that it will >zero< traffic is besides the point, however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly I missed the part where the article was really called Ethnic cleansing by Croats. I see nothing wrong with sourced additions of other incidents. As far as anything else goes, the proper handling of an article in which reliable sources are themselves disputed is by neutrality tags, which are on. Inline disputes of every fact, however properly sourced, that some POV-pushers doesn't like are improper.  RGTraynor  18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't dedicated to assault on Croats as an ethnic group (though indirectly is, since the Republic of Croatian is the Croats' nation-state), but an attack-page on Croatia.

I might be willing to reconsider if any such similar page is presented, so that I can assume, based on precedent law, that this is not an exception. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup as necessary. This is a notable subject and reliable sources have written about it. Therefore, there should be a Wikipedia article of this title. The actions of indivudual editors, and the un/suitability of various sections of the article as it stands now, do not change that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Now I'm not some Croat nationalist freak (I'm not trying to "preserve the honor of my state"), but objectively speaking all three "ethnic cleansing" topics of this article are seriously disputed and controversial (and I don't mean the perpetrators). The foibe massacres, Operation Storm, and the holocaust in Yugoslavia are clearly not proven or widely accepted to fit the definition of ethnic cleansing. We all know that "polling is not a substitute for discussion", and I move that these ethnic cleansing claims be first reliably confirmed before this article can be allowed to pass.
  • The most obvious example, of course, are the foibes. These events are so unclear today, that Partisan uniforms have also been found on the bodies in there. The most important problems with implying that this was ethnic cleansing are: 1) the fact that the killings of that period were ideologically, not ethnically motivated, with Croats getting massacred as well. 2) the fact that the majority of Italians actually left the area years later. 3) the fact that there is no proof that the foibe massacres and the Italian exodus from the area are linked at all.
  • As for Operation 'Storm', the UN was on the ground there. The minute someone gets me a UN source that clearly states "Operation 'Storm' was ethnic cleansing", I'll concede this point. Otherwise, I suggest we do not lightly brand it as anything without real proof.
  • WW2. We all know about the holocaust, was the holocaust ethnic cleansing? A large number of Croats suffered alongside Jews, Serbs, and Roma in Jasenovac and elsewhere. We're talking about German eugenics here, that applied in this case to the Serbs as well as "inferior" Slavs (Croats were, quite stupidly, not considered Slavs by the Axis).--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Each of the (widely divergent) events treated here is already treated better elsewhere. Weaving them into a common story, implying that ethnic cleansing has been a consistent pattern in Croatia, is just the kind of POV-driven OR we don't need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Even if every sentence in this article was properly sourced and referenced, it is still an assortment of very loosely associated events, hand picked by the authors of the article and grouped together to misrepresent some sort of a non-existent common bond. If an article like this is allowed to stay, retaliatory articles (possibly titled Ethnic cleansing by Serbs, Ethnic cleansing by Bosniaks, Ethnic cleansing by Albanians) are sure to appear. The article contributes little new information but none of it valuable to Wikipedia. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Article based on stereotypes (of a certain group of people), uncomplete, based on false and wrong data. Lack of knowledge in matter. Bad intention ("Croatia, as it is today, consisted of several regions with very different history...Dalmatia had a distinct population"). Typical anti-Croat writing. Dismembering of Croatia, and then naming the population (in dismembered parts) with various names (all but Croat name), in order to make Croatia smaller, and to deny the existence of Croats. Bad intention could also be seen in the fact, that intention of the author of this article was to throw the mud on Croats: how come that the author hasn't wrote a single word about ethnical cleansing (directly by state or mercenaries to do the dirty work; also, ethnical cleansing was committed in a rough and in a "fine" way), in which Croat population was eliminated (killed or forced to leave)? Not a single word about eliminations of Croats because of greaterserbianism, Italian irredentism, Ottoman occupation? Not a single word about that how the Croat population was eliminated from the areas in Croatia that were later used (by greaterserbian forces) as a jumpboard for the attempt of conquering of whole Croatia? Obviously, author has filtered the information. And the data, that remained, he based on mythological claims. Serious topic and article that deal with that cannot be based on propagandist sources. Kubura (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Important. The starter of this article is user Special:Contributions/MikioIo. The starting edit [15] is a scholar example of POV writing and propagandism. Obsessive anti-Croat writing. Now, compare his edits with this author Special:Contributions/Mikiolo (there was Mikio-capital I-o, and here is Mikio-small letter l-o). Accidental similarity? If we have the case of same user (I believe we do, because he had the same area of interest - "Ethnical cleansing in Croatia", same anti-Croat attitude and lack of knowledge [16]), we have to know that that author ignored the voting results on the talkpage, as well as the sources from the article (and redirected according to his wish). See the comments on his contributions, while he was redirecting. Also, article with similar name existed and was deleted [17] . "Defender" was - Mikiolo. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnical cleansing in Croatia. I don't know (I can't see that) who started the article, but we have obvious content forking. Kubura (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll point out that the deleted article above was done so because of the horrible misspelling of the title. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position; namely to present the different instances of population displacement & ethnic cleansing in Croatia as a consistent pattern by means of which the Croatian state was created. Most content is already present in more suitable articles. And I too dread the appearance of an Ethnic cleansing in [country] series. - Ev (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must contain all the truth, not only that of the Croats who obviously want to erase all the memory of the ethnic cleansing in their country. But I believe the article will be deleted because only a few wikipedians dare to fight (for the real truth and impartiality) a large group of Croats who vote for deletion.Unfortunately this is one of the limits of Wikipedia.--Pannonicus (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, we must Fight For The Truth! mustn't we? or the eevil Croat conspiracy will get us all! I suggest you use arguments, not nationalist "catchphrases", all the while keeping in mind who actually invented ethnic cleansing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Pannonicus, please read the very first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, an official Wikipedia policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Country's Fucked

This Country's Fucked (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be made up. Could not find sources. E.g. urban dictionary mentions the phrase, but does not explain the connection to Australia. (Was prodded as unsourced.) The very model of a minor general (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - blatant POV pushing. Most of the sources listed are WP links. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Brand new article, but there's nothing that can be made of it that I can see. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• This Article's Fucked: (Alright, I probably should have resisted the temptation.) No reliable sources, a mighty 36 hits on the Australian Google [18], and all of them blog posts, with few of them actually referring to Australia.  RGTraynor  13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A soapbox POV essay. No reliable sources (four Wikipedia articles, an entry in UrbanDictionary and Flickr. Those aren't reliable sources) and mostly original research (then again, no reliable sources and the inclusion of OR usually go hand-in-hand). In any case it has no place on Wikipedia Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Doc Strange. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'd be making the same arguments above. No need to repeat myself. --Pmedema (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, it should serve as an example of the smallest possible Google search return for a plausible string ever seen. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - POV essay with no reliable sources. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a forum for personal agenda and opinion. Dwilso 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Could apply to just about any country. Qworty (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for a variety of reasons, including the fact that this is WP:OR, pushes a political POV, and probably isn't that notable a slogan anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC).
• Delete. Generally the case when the most reliable source presented is urban dictionary. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with attitude - no need for that sort of stuff here perhaps should have been speedy SatuSuro 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)