Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 28

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bellywashers

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. It has already been Prodded per same reason, but creator removed the tag. Victao lopes (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Only notability of product is getting parents to pay $3 for 12 ounces of juice because the bottle is in the shape of Cartoon Network characters. Without that deal it's just another juice drink. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I was the "PRODer" of this unsourced article about this non notable juice drink made by a non-notable company. I think that about sums it up Beeblbrox (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete does not establish notability via refs. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 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, considering Pgagnon999's arguments. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Community Company

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

Original research Ros0709 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No idea what this is supposed to be about, but it definitely seems to be original research/synthesis, possible POV pushing too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP:OR as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep In light of the above feedback the entry has been rewritten to include references which demonstrate that the entry is not original research. The community company business model was first developed in the 1970's in Devon, England and implemented in many real live businesses. The structure and principles of the community company business model were formally presented in papers in 1977, 1983 and 1996. Various academic and other research into how the community company works were also carried out. The entry is an attampt to summarise this.Nicholas 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasJMoore (talk • contribs)
• Comment Although it is difficult to evaluate the print references you provided, I think it is important to WP:Assume good faith and believe that they do indeed refer to this model. However, I think it would be important to determine if this is a model that received significant enough notability in the '70s and '80s as well as a legacy of inherited notability that makes it important today and not just a vague artifact. If it is an artifact, the material might be moved to a broader article about the subject matter. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Unless the new sources can be shown to be false I see no particular reason for deletion (although the article needs more work). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super Stick Man

Super Stick Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I wish there were a speedy category for this but it doesn't look like there is (although the email address may make db-spam appropriate [address now removed]); the prod was removed by the author. Unencyclopedic article about an aparrently unpublished comic for which no references were found and none are offered. I think I might be being a bit fierce towards some enthusiastic kids, but the article, regrettably, has no place here. Ros0709 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non notable Canyouhearmenow 23:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:36, 29 February 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 and redirect. Let me explain: many keep arguments were based on assumption that an executive of some notable organisation is automatically notable, which fails to comply with WP:BIO#Basic criteria that requires independent sources. Also, third-party sources are required by WP:V and WP:BLP, and the article has none of them. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Shell

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

Appears to not meet our current notability standards. Having reviewed the recent AFD of another Wikipedia volunteer staffer, I came across this article. Appears to be an executive of a company of minor notability Bomis (removing Wikipedia from the equation limits their notability substantially), that provided initial seed money and hosting for Wikipedia. Which is makes Bomis arguably notable, but not this individual. Searching for him under relevant bits turns up extremely minimal independent sourcing. WP:BLP1E also likely applies, as this private individual only appears to have attracted some extremely minimal news attention in passing because the company he was a figure at did at one point support Wikipedia in it's early days. Independently, I see no indication that he meets WP:BIO. Relevant searches: Tim Shell & Wikipedia; Tim Shell & Bomis; Tim Shell & Wikipedia. Delete per failing WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Note: in previous deletion discussions, the argument was advanced incorrectly that a connection to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation "enhances" notability somehow. It simply does not, and is not part of any notability guideline I have seen on this website. Lawrence § t/e 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Last nomination was less than two months ago. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• No. There were a total of four !votes previously, and the article is practically speedy-able as there is insufficient sourcing. This is a valid AFD. We have no evidence of notability or compliance with WP:BIO. Lawrence § t/e 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't a month generally considered to be the reasonable minimum time period between AfDs? Guest9999 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's what I thought. Lawrence § t/e 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The timeline isn't as important, persay, as the result of the prior noms. Seeing as how both prior AfDs resulted in "Non consensus" with a minimal draw of editors, I agree this is a good faith nom. One month seems to be ample time to allow for improvements to the article. That being said, this article is drawing the attention of people and motivating them enough to continue to nominate it for deletion, which of course begs the question: has anyone attempted to improve the article between now and the last AfD, and closely related, is it improvable? General questions, not aimed at any editor in particular. Abstaining from a !vote here (I haven't even looked at the article, how could I know?) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The first AfD for the article took place over two years ago, since then no independent sources have been added. Currently of the three sources used in the article two are from the subjects personal website and one is an internal company document that names him as a trustee. Independently produced, reliable sources are required to establish the notability of a subject, I do not think that such sources exist to support this article. Guest9999 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• merge/redirect to Bomis. He doesn't meet WP:BIO and any relevant information can be mentioned at the Bomis article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bomis. No notability outside of Wikipedia history, but substantial notability in that history. Deleting would create a large number of redlinks; redirecting preserves the main bits of information. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: this won't create a lot of redlinks. Only 40 total articles link to Tim Shell in main space, which is all that matter. Almost all are from Template:Wikipediahistory which is featured on 41 total articles. We'd only have to remove Tim Shell as a redlink from the template, and the one leftover article. Lawrence § t/e 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you see an advantage in deletion rather than redirecting? It would seem that we should modify the template anyways if we make this a redirect since Bomis is on the template, but I don't see any advantage in outright deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That idea has theoretical merit; lets see how consensus forms. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep if not redirect to Bomis. Is the nom saying this person is less notable than Florence Devouard, Angela Beesley, Larry Sanger, or even our esteemed Jimbo? Ursasapien (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just because other similar material exists (links to essay) it doesn't mean that this article or even those articles meet with the current policies and guidelines. Consensus can change and every article should be judged on its own merits. In this case the comparison made seems dubious, the article on Jimmy Wales has over fifty references and the one on Larry Sanger has almost double that - many from reliable, independent sources. There may be some questions over the other articles mentioned but that should not be relevent to this discussion. If the article was about any buissness person not related to Wikipedia which was referenced entirely by their personal website and internal company documents it would be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• That is indeed what I say. Where are the multiple, independent sources that assert or show his notability? Current or former status or involvement with Wikipedia has no extra value in and of itself in establishing notability. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bomis per the points I made in my prior nomination. Picaroon (t) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Bomis is a significant internet company regardless of its relationship to us, and therefore its CEO is notable. DGG (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Where is the independent coverage for this person? Notability for a private individual of a borderline notable company is not a sufficient demonstration of notability. Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Bomis. Company is notable, but not true of the CEO independently, which can be amply covered at the company's main article. Eusebeus (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable CEO of a notable firm who played a key role at a major not-for-profit company that is responsible for the largest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• His past service to Wikipedia/WMF is irrelevant to notability; we don't reward service here with articles ever. How is "Tim Shell" notable? Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Alashon. --Oakshade (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• His past service to Wikipedia/WMF is irrelevant to notability; we don't reward service here with articles ever. How is "Tim Shell" notable? Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect There seem to be some confusion about the use of the word "notable". Notability and fame might be considered synonyms by some, but in wikipedia policies the words have very different meanings. From Wikipedia:Notability: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Note WP:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."" The crucial question is not if we think he is important, it is if we think that we can find "substantial coverage in reliable sources". Since the article has been up for quite some time and there is still not a single proper reference (just 2 links to his personal website and 1 link to a document he signed), my conclusion is that there seem to be no such sources. If reliable sources are found I'd be happy to change my mind. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge→Wikimedia Foundation: from a brief search and looking at the spare article as it stands, Mr. Shell's notability rests upon his relationship to Bomis and, subsequently, Wikimedia/Wikipedia. I have not come across mentions of Mr. Shell which are not in connection to one or both of these organizations. Also, as for reliable sources, these are hard to come by; consider adding http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss, which is on the borderline of reliability ... at least it is not a self-published website. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this be an identical argument for merging Jimmy Wales, an individual for whom it would be nearly impossible to find a source that doesn't mention Wikipedia? After all, doesn't Mr. Wales' notability rest exclusively on Wikipedia? Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that the first half of Ceyockek's argument is weak, it doesn't matter if a person is famous for just a single thing. What does matter (and what Ceyockek also mentions) is reliable sources. The Jimmy Wales article has plenty and the Tim Shell has not a single one. No sources=no article, that's basic Wikipedia policy (WP:PROVEIT). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there is a significant difference in the scope of activities of Wales vs. Shell. Trying to say that Wales is associated with a single thing is denying the obvious. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, should have been deleted long ago; and would have, I suspect, if not for a certain vain assumption that all Wikipedia-related execs are notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note For the folks implying that notability is inherited for CEOs, is it really? Doubtful. Bomis is only really notable for helping Wikipedia once. Add in that we have literally no real independent coverage of Tim Shell, how does Wikipedia or readers benefit from a perma-stub about a non-notable fellow from a company that is almost never in the news? Past service to Wikipedia is not rewarded with an article. Lawrence § t/e 14:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as stubified per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, not valid or applicable. No sources appear to exist that we can use to expand this. Shell gets no ongoing coverage. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 6 March 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. Fram (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Making Waves Educational Program

Making Waves Educational Program (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this organization is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non Notable Canyouhearmenow 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion -- no assertion of notability, no references, no reasoning to keep. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 5 March 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 WP:CSD#A7(bio)/ article does not assert any significance or importance of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duke Conover

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

Managing editor of a newspaper in Paducah, Kentucky. Doesn't appear to have done anything notable or been recognized for anything notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:39, 29 February 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 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time-Domain Thermoreflectance

Time-Domain Thermoreflectance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another instance of someone uploading their college paper onto Wikipedia. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Keep I missed the refs first time around. Serves me right for procrastinating papers by using wikipedia. RogueNinja_talk 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Hang on, this is not for speedy deletion. I reads like sound science and it has references. How do you know it is a college paper? That, on its own, is not a reason for deletion. Is it notable? I suggest asking some of the science projects for input. Maybe it overlaps with other articles and should be merged. Maybe it should be kept. It should not be deleted without further attention. --Bduke (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A small amount of googling [1] reveals 52 mentions in scholarly sources so the topic is more than a "college paper", and from following one of the links the origins of it seem to go back to 1986 (shame the article's refs don't but early days). It seems to be mainly a current interest of very few research groups though and I suspect the authors of this article belong to one of them so WP:NPOV is of concern, but that alone is not a reason to delete when it's only 3 days old. Related to Thermal conductivity#Measurement but there's already enough here that merging it there would unbalance the coverage of that article and this is at a much higher technical level. Qwfp (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable technique, with multiple mentions in journals and books. The article just needs some cleanup and wikification. --Itub (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Article could be cleaned up, but it definitely serves a purpose and should be kept. Jgebis (talk) 16:00, 29 February 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Estrella Falls

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

I'm aware of the general controversy/debate about the notability of malls but this one won't even open for another two years. No evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that it won't open for a while seems to be immaterial. I did find this and this which seem to be decent sources. Also, given the sheer size of the mall (it's not just a mall actually; there will be residential space and a hotel), it's very likely to be even more notable when it opens. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have rewritten the page and added these refs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL and notability issues RogueNinja_talk 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it's WP:CRYSTAL at all; several of the tenants have been verified in the two sources I dug up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It might have notability in the future. Right now, it does not. RogueNinja_talk 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This appears to be the subject of secondary sources and not WP:CRYSTAL as it is verified. --Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If it opens, it can be considered for an article. That its opening has been delayed until two years hence suggests that it may never open. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to have satisfied the "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" portion of WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:53, 1 March 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 per WP:HEY. Great job in rescuing a potential article. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture

Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extremely inappropriate, pure fancruft and WP:Trivia that has no notability on its own. Collectonian (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete in popular culture This is nothing but a big laundry list of mostly trivial mentions of Xena. The only "sources" are individual episodes of whatever show happened to mention her. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• No deleteCan stopping, has nothing illegal in Article Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture, there is this type of page to other series because I can not stay? This is not just! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge some of this to the main Xena article. I can understand Brazil 23's complaint that it's not fair that other series seem to have this type of page, but this type of "in popular culture" article is discouraged. As X-lb. says, it's mostly a list of occasions where Xena was mentioned on another television show. If you want a real article about Xena in popular culture, write about how she inspired girls of all ages and was popular with viewers regardless of gender. Mandsford (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To note: a much smaller version of this was part of the Xena article and removed because it was still just a trivia list and no one wanted to actually do the discussion of how the series affected the popular discussion. Collectonian (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that ther are other similarly trivial "this guy said pop culture thing" articles is not an excuse to keep this article. Otto4711 (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - indiscriminate listing and directory of things that have no relationship whatsoever to each other beyond happening to reference Xena in some way. "This one time on TV somebody said Xena" does not form th basis of an encyclopedic article. Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Keep good work Addhoc, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles et al.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe you should actually read WP:TRIVIA and see what it says, since it very explicitly does not include criteria for removal, as you seem to believe it does. EDIT Thank you. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Cheers for pointing that out.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind word; I have added your to my list of nice Wikipedians! By the way, I like the little check mark next to the keep! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this appropriate, discriminate, and encyclopedic article. The topic has attracted serious scholarly attention. For example, see Kim Tolley, "Xena, Warrior Princess, or Judith, Sexual Warrior? The Search for a Liberating Image of Women's Power in Popular Culture" History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 337-342 and Tough Girls: Women Warriors and Wonder Women in Popular Culture by Sherrie Inness. The way the article is presented should simply be improved upon based on these sources and others, but the topic of Xena in popular culture from an academic standpoint is certainly a worthy one to be developed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you remove all of the trivia, and write a decent scholarly paragraph based on those citations, then I'll consider changing my opinion. Addhoc (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I started to do so, but my brother is here now, so I'll have to resume the effort in a few hours. Feel free to see if you can do anything with the sources until I come back. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - if you want to write a decent scholarly paragraph, I still think this should be deleted, but the paragraph, with the sources, would be welcome in the main article. Collectonian (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• My brother could only stay for a few minutes. Actually, it looks like Addhoc has already taken that initiative. Kudos to him! Anyway, another source that we can possibly use for further revisions is Michelle Erica Green's "Xenademia: The Warrior Princess Goes To College", which seems to place the topic in some context as well. I'm not sure what to make of this one though. Another one that I'll see what I can do with is Frustrating Female Heroism: Mixed Messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy. By: MAGOULICK, MARY. Journal of Popular Culture, Oct2006, Vol. 39 Issue 5, p729-755, 27p; DOI: 10.1111/j. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Transwiki'd, poorly. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Adequately sourced and demonstrably notable. If it weren't for the phrase in popular culture in the title this would be a speedy keep. Durova^Charge! 02:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, looks well-sourced to me. I can't see any policies it violates. --Pixelface (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Another barely-disguised WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. WP:TRIVIA does not in any way advocate the deletion of "popular culture" lists or articles, and in fact explicitly excludes them when focused, organized, and sourced. It's bad enough to wikilawyer policy, but it's utterly audacious to pretend that policy supports what you're saying when it doesn't.--Father Goose (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• You really need to work on WP:CIVILITY. And, FYI, the article has been dramatically changed since the nomination. Collectonian (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest a toned-down approach here? The page is tagged for rescue and the rescue crew did a very good job. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I apologize for the strenuousness of my comments; I will redact portions of it. However, given that the improvements you mention have not prompted you to withdraw the nomination, my points remain the same.--Father Goose (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not really...please note above that I suggested that with the improvements, it could be better served by being merged into the main article, as I do not feel it meets WP:N on its own. Collectonian (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that there is a dwarf planet named after Xena makes it worth keeping. I don't think this article is "trivial" in the least. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep in its current form. The previous version was correctly tagged for deletion, but after the rewrite, it actually looks like an encyclopedia article--and a decent one too. Now, if you will allow me to mount my soabox.... WP:TRIVIA is complete bullshit. It's muddled, watered-down, contradictory and confusing and was based on a very weak consensus at best. Whoever labeled this poorly formulated mish-mash of deletionist and inclusionist suggestions a "guideline" was joking, I'm sure. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect Since it has been completely rewritten (is there anything left from the former version)? I see it is basically a copy (or original?) of Xena: Warrior Princess#Influence, so I'd also strongly consider redirecting there. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect back to Xena: Warrior Princess#Influence; whomever is trying to "rescue" this title by copy-pasting; note the refs with "Retrieved on" dates (oldid) from years before this article was created. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  I don't understand what's being described here.--Father Goose (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  The version on this article nominated looks nothing like the current version; it the current version does, however, look an awful lot like a section of Xena: Warrior Princess#Influence i.e. copy-pasted, including the refs with old dates. I've opined delete and redirect which I know is quite unusual; in this case the contrib history that would be lost actually exists in the redirect target I suggest. In short, this was a bogus "rescue" — such gaming of the system should not be rewarded with a keep. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are assuming bad faith. I did the removal of the trivia, plus copy and paste. I haven't 'voted' keep, in fact I suggested delete. I'm not part of the WP:RESCUE project. In my humble opinion, the title isn't a plausible redirect, and I don't begin to understand why you think I should care about keeping the contribution history. What I did was merge the influence section of Xena: Warrior Princess with this article, and then merged the resulting text into Xena in order to improve the article. Addhoc (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at the details such as who did what, and I didn't see the copy in the Xena article. I agree that the title is not a good title for a redirect (are there many inbound links?). The history I was referring to was history, in this article, that I didn't see as needing keeping as it existed in whichever article it was copied from. What I'm now concerned about is that this is all being covered three times now and I feel once is plenty.How about once in one of the other two, and call it good? Please excuse any impression of bad faith. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very fair point. I've summarized the "Influence" sections in Xena and Xena: Warrior Princess and added a pointer in each to Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture. I've shuttled the Sexuality section to the Xena (character) article only. And I've restored, sorted, and copyedited the list of popular references from the other two articles that were recently clipped, as they are appropriate for a stand-alone IPC article.--Father Goose (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - way more notable (with indep refs) than many pop culture articles. Nice small influence bit on original article and bigger on daughter article. Nice save Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Le Grande Roi's excellent efforts. McJeff (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind word; I have added your to my list of nice Wikipedians! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm stuck on another project for the next day or so, but a quick scan of Google scholar gave stacks of useful references - enough so that I'd probably enjoy helping develop this article if it is survives AfD. Xena had a large impact on popular culture (in much the same way that Buffy did after it), and there is a wealth of academic material to draw upon. - Bilby (talk) 08:35, 2 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crow face

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

AfD'd for another user. Article apparently is WP:OR. I have no opinion on it, just listing per a private request. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per it being an orphaned article and being full of original research. This part may be my own POV, but this article is ridiculous and is not even true. Not to mention it's really short. Did I mention it's not true? Sounds like someone made it up and then a few others added stuff in thinking it was a real term. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the references given don't support the existence of any such term; indeed, two of them are pictures lacking any explanation. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, OR, no sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:13, 3 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature Theatre Company

Signature Theatre Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Theatre company with no evidence of notability (speedy replaced by prod by admin to allow time for author to give evidence of notability, prod then removed)  —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 21:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless notability evidence, pursuiant to WP:N and WP:CORP can be provided. I see no evidence of that yet. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the admin that denied the speedy and put up the prod. Since this shows no evidence yet of notability, I am voting delete for now. If that evidence materializes in the next 5 days, I will change my vote. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, probably. I see some trace of notability but it's hard to get past all the PR/ad stuff to be sure. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 1 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pork Stories

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

Contested prod. Web collection of stories, published in 2008, of questionable notability. A google search on "Pork Stories" with "Fratire" returns just two hits. Roleplayer (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Some of the sources in the article do not seem to mention the subject at all, and do nothing to help notability. The Huffington Post articles Misogyny For Sale: The New "Frat-Lit" Trend [2] and Pass the Beer: In Defense of "Fratire" [3] have no mention whatsoever of the website, just "fratire" in general. Neither does the FT article The return of the real man do so [4] (a glance at that article indicated the subject to be something entirely unrelated). My attempts to search for any substantial coverage about the website have been fruitless. The website does not pass WP:WEB at all, not even by a long shot, and adding sources which do not verify the subject of the article does not help either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the protestations of two users on the talk page ^{(who obviously aren't the same person or related to the site at all)}, one of which claiming that it gets thousands of hits a day, Alexa suggests it has a rank of 11,528,221. Which is ten and a half million worse (lower? higher?) than a forum I frequent with just ten active users, and ~5 posts a day. Blatantly not notable. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah this is pretty clearly spam/vandalism. 66.215.247.21 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 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 consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of divided nations

List of divided nations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list makes no sense. The first bit is not a list of divided nations: it's a list of divided ethnic groups. Division of ethnic groups is perfectly natural: are we saying all ethnic groups should be confined to the same region? Second section is a POV minefield, nationalist edit-warrior's paradise, and makes little sense either: "divided nations" are not nations any more, are they? The term is an oxymoron. So what's India doing here? Modern India is not a "divided nation": at least, almost nobody thinks of it in that way. Third section seems irrelevant, and the fourth bit is is true but of limited utility. Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no way to define the term in a non-OR way, no way to avoid it becoming POV and no way avoiding the article becoming a never-ending edit-war battleground. --Laveol ^T 21:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, has been a playground for POV-pushers from various sides to promote their pet irredentist causes, and lacks any coherent definition of what a "divided" nation is in the first place. Note that "List of X" articles typically work only as subarticles to articles about "X" itself, but of course we do not have (and I believe never had) any article about "divided nation". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above; this is definitely going to be hard to keep NPOV, especially with no clear qualifications for what should be on the list or not. With enough imagination, just about any country could be put on here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete OR & POV magnet. No way to tell which countries should be on the list or not, and as for ethnic group - every ethnic group of more than a few tens of thousands of people can be found in more than one country. And the point is??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I quite like the content but the article has no sources at all and that won't do for this sort of tendentious material. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete POV mindfield is a mild word for it. Canyouhearmenow 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete blatant OR. Bogdan ^що? 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No way to verify, strong POV, and possible OR. Tiptoety ^talk 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It's not such a bad idea. But this is the "horse designed by a committee", going all different directions with divided ethnic groups who don't have their own nation, nations that have been broken up, nations that used to be part of a larger group, etc. When you think about all the changes in national boundaries in the history of civilization, every nation that ever was could fit in this list. On a project like this, it's helpful to have some ground rules to prevent an editing war between people who think they know more than anyone elseMandsford (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Divided- sorry for the pun, but got mixed feelings on it. The part of the ethnic groups should be on it's own & not included here. Only that in the later part is fine (even in the historical aspect), but as the original author stated "was initially for nations that were divided, like Korea". So delete most, but not all as a bit is correctly used. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Carlossuarrez46 et al. Too bad, as it is such a nice and pretty list. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 4 March 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 redirected to Zulqarnain by User:Eastmain. No need for this to stay open; legit redirect now. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] S.Zulqarnain.zaidi

S.Zulqarnain.zaidi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography apparently of a cricket player which is wholly unsourced but if believed would likely be notable. Since there are no sources, its assertion of notability prevents speedy deletion but needs to be verified to survive here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Zulqarnain. This article deals with the same cricketer as the existing article at Zulqarnain. --Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:41, 29 February 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 per WP:MUSIC criteria #6. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers Grym

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

Delete distilling the long ode to the band that passes for an encyclopedia article shows no indication of meeting WP:BAND. Lots of name dropping but nothing showing these guys actually did anything notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; I, too, see nothing that actually meets any criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reason that carlossuarex46 noted. Kamikaze Deadboy(talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I see no real claim to notability Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on WP:MUSIC criterion #6—Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Too Poetic was in Gravediggaz, a group with established notability. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Too Poetic's work with Gravediggaz, as mentioned above, establishes notability. The Independent ran an obituary (here), where the band are discussed. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:51, 2 March 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. As the debate has progressed, initial objections have been addressed and the early deleters have not returned to assert otherwise. Ty 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Johanson

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

Delete unsourced bio about nn artist fails WP:BIO, being a student of notables doesn't make one notable. Note: her husband is up for deletion down below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no sources, no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• To help assess Johanson's notability or lack thereof I've added one published source (a news obituary) and some additional information about Johanson's public pieces and career to the article. I'll be checking to see if she's listed in Who's Who in American Art over the weekend. Xine11 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I think there's something here. Her papers are held in the University of Washington Libraries [5] (they have a portrait as well: [6]). I'll hold my !vote though until I see what Xine11 can come up with over the weekend.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added a few more sources mentioning her, including one book calling her "among the foremost in the use of sandcast pebble mosaics". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources revealing much detail are thin on the ground, but that's to be expected for an artist of this period. Although the verifiable facts are presently sketchy, the whole picture rings true to me. A similar, admittedly minor, artist working today would have a number of online newspaper reviews, exhibition notices etc enough to fully meet WP:BIO. I'm willing to err on the side of inclusion in the hope that Xine11 can do a bit of old-fashioned library research to add to the article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per mural and links. - Modernist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 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 to delete, so keep. This reference from Emporis says it's the 5th-largest architectural practice in the world, so clearly it's notable. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NBBJ

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

Delete nn architecture firm sourced to its own website. No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am also nominating its founders:
  • Floyd Naramore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • William J. Bain, Sr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Clifton Brady (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Perry Johanson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is not my area of expertise by a long shot, but NBBJ is indeed a significant architectural firm (they have, for example, won a number of AIA Honor Awards). I edited the article a few days ago mostly to remove non-objective content I found offensive--but I will do a search for relevant citations over the weekend as well.Xine11 (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a few more articles dealing with the firm as a whole from the numerous citations I found in architectural journals and such. (Many individual buildings have been published in these journals as well.) NBBJ clearly deserves a better article than has yet been written, but I hope adding these citations will at least help toward establishing its notability. Xine11 (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have expanded each of the founder biographies (which I added as stubs) to include reference sections and a few citations and, where I had verifiable information to provide, a little more about their careers. Note that Naramore, Bain, and Johanson were FAIA. Xine11 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I have just discovered that William J. Bain, Sr. has a more extensive existing page at William J. Bain--I'm not sure how I missed it when I went to add my stub. Perhaps in this particular case merging the two pages would be a better option? He should be listed as Sr. if he remains--his son, Jr., is also a prominent architect and FAIA. Xine11 (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it probably goes without saying that this would be my vote. I did edit this article before it was added to the AfD, and add the four founder biography stubs, but I am not the original author (and am in no way associated with the firm). Xine11 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lil D Vs. Droppin Sickness

Lil D Vs. Droppin Sickness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape of a non-notable rapper on a non-notable label. "Contested" PROD. Risker (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as it fails WP:N miserably. ArcAngel (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Artist isn't notable, therefore the album isn't notable either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:42, 29 February 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 per improvements by User:Jerry. Adding an expand tag for further article building. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tommaso Ziffer

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

Is this interior designer notable? It sounds like the hotel he designed probably is, so there's a possibility that notability can be proved for him, but at the moment it reads like a WP:COI FlagSteward (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —αlεx•mullεr 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as this person fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is a requirement for editors who are thinking about nominating articles for deletion on the basis of notability to actually themselves look for sources. This should be mentioned in the nomination statement. I looked for sources and easily found 3. I added them to the article. I have absolutely no interest in the subject of the article, so I don't plan on adding more, but an interested editor should be able to find lots. This is a notable interior designer. See improved article and references I added. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 06:10, 5 March 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Mohammed

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

The only source on this Guantanamo detainee is from the transcript of another detainee's tribunal. We don't even know his detainee number. Therefore this article fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete IMHO, Guantanamo detainee's aren't notable for inclusion into WP. ArcAngel (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't mind if it is deleted - I would like to turn it into a redirect to Ayman al-Zawahiri since that was the name of an alias he used. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Just delete it the redirect will not provide any useful purpose to a reader. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Simply being a detainee at GB is not notable, and no assertion of notability is made. The article claims "somali bio" but there's not even an indication of place and date of birth - a bio should have that as a minimum. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect after figuring out which detainee this transcript was referring to. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Disclaimer -- I started this article. Note: I started it long before WP:BLP was instituted. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• When to fix up minor errors in our references? -- Lots of contributors routinely silently fix minor typographical, grammar, transliteration or punctuation problems. I don't do this any more when those errors concern the identity of GWOT captives or suspects. I don't think we should do this, because the scale of the number of errors is so large. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Background -- Lots of Guantanamo captives were mentioned in the allegations against other captives -- or were mentioned during the testimony their testimony. I was able to figure out the real names of most of them. But I wasn't able to figure out Abu Mohammed's real name.
  • The DoD's official documents name approximately thirty percent of the Guantanamo captives inconsistently. Some times it was a (probable) transliteration difference. But many times the other name is markedly different. In a significant number of the captives the alternate name bears so little resemblance to the earlier name that no one could possibly guess the DoD thought they were a single individual.
  • Some Guantanamo captives are held mainly because some intelligence analyst, who doesn't speak Arabic, thought their name, or "known alias", is close to that of a suspect on a suspicious list. So
  • JTF-GTMO seems to have failed to figure out how to keep track of who the captives were. Many captives requested the testimony of witnesses, and had that testimony ruled "not reasonably available", because the camp authorities thought those witnesses were off-Island, when their witnesses were, in fact, also held at Guantanamo.
  • The case of Abdullah Khan is a significant one. He was apprehended by American forces during a visit to the south, after he was denounced. His denunciators told the Americans he was not who he claimed. They claimed he was really a former Taliban Governor, and commander of the Taliban's three main air-bases. American interrogators in Afghanistan told him they KNEW he was lying about his real identity, and threatened to send him to a worse place. And sure enough, they sent him to Guantanamo a few months later. This is when his case should have been turned around. Other captives told him that the real Khirullah Khairkhwa not only had been captured by the Americans over a year before he was captured, but he too was also in Guantanamo. Khan testified to his Tribunal that every time his interrogators insisted they knew he was lying about his identity he urged them to check the prison roster to confirm that they already held the real Khirullah Khairkhwa. It still shocks me that none of his interrogators were willing or able to check an accurate, reliable prison roster to confirm the truth of Khan's claim.
  • When the DoD claimed three men committed suicide on June 10, 2006 they initially insisted that none of them had attorneys working to help them file habeas corpus requests. Untrue. Mani Al-Utaybi is one of the men named inconsistently by the DoD. His lawyers had spent almost a year trying to contact him. The DoD would not forward their mail to him -- based on the claim that they didn't hold any captives under his name. They changed the spelling of his name in the three weeks between when they released the full official list of captive's names, and the day they reported his death. His lawyers were never able to contact him. He died without learning he had been cleared for release. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Many captives testified before their Combatant Status Review Tribunals that the allegations they faced on their Summary of Evidence (CSRT) memos were new to them -- that they were not topics their interrogators had ever asked them about. These captives asked their Tribunals to consider that their file might have been mixed up with that of someone else. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect -- I don't think there is enough information known about this captive -- under this name. He may have a full article under his real name. If we ever figure out who this really refers to we can redirect this to their. Meanwhile however it should be redirected somewhere useful. Guantanamo captives missing from the official list is one candidate. I don't really see how redirecting to Ayman al-Zawahiri makes sense. None of the links to this article are from articles where Ayman al-Zawahiri is who is intended. "Abu X" is a nickname. It means "Father of X". There may be some value in creating something like List of individuals known by the nickname "Abu". This would be extremely useful for disambiguation. In another embarrassing gaff there have been multiple al Qaeda suspects named some variation of "Abu X Al Libi" who were called al-Qaeda's third in command. There was an Egyptian al Qaeda leader known as "Abu X El Masri" who was killed in an air strike. It was only after his death that it turned out that the picture of him on the US Government's "Reward for Justice" was actually an early picture of Abu Hamza al-Masri, before his lost an eye. Redirection to this disambiguation page would be useful to distinguish the alias of Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Guantanamo captive. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 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. Fram (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EGLN Radio

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

Apparently non-notable internet radio station. Ghits are forums, blogs and nother non reliable sources, no evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Since the Internet is dynamic, just as some world radio stadions aren't notable enough for inclusion into WP, the same holds true for Internet stations. ArcAngel (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Searching yields virtually no results, let alone mention in anything apart from forums or blogs. Fails WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:04, 3 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie and mummy

Zombie and mummy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims to be a "significant piece of artwork"; however, the artist doesn't have a page, and none of the sources seem to meet WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Curse - per WP:NFT; from the talk page, "THIS ARTICLE is for our class project so please do not delete page!" Even though the topic is not made up, the article is, and the class project does not currently conform to notability and WP:RS standards. ◄Zahakiel► 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and salting might be in order RogueNinja_talk 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The artist does actually have a page (Olia Lialina) - interesting images. Guest9999 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. This isn't the place for class projects. I've also flagged Olia Lialina for notability too. (Emperor (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
• Delete. I followed the links and looked at a couple of the cartoons. They are distinctly non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean when you say salt —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.graham21 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Salt" means that the topic cannot be re-created without administrative permission. It indicates that not only is the topic not notable, but it is not likely to become so in the immediate future, so it is prevented from being re-created until a persuasive argument can be made that it is suitable for inclusion. ◄Zahakiel► 20:05, 4 March 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. Article also needs expansion based on new sources added to article, so tagged. 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Vojinovich

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

absolutely no Google hits whatsoever; dubious source - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: MY work ISP does not allow access to the resource, claiming it is blocked due to "adult content". - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment FYI, it's a SFW b&w fashion photo of her, no caption but her name. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. Seems it was tagged for speedy before but declined. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete There is one decent source now (the name was spelled wrong). However, I can't find any other sources, so it seems she's not quite notable yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] East Greenwich Hockey

East Greenwich Hockey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apart from being a vandalism magnet, this is apparently a locally notable HS hockey team. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is nothing more than a high school hockey team's 2007 state title win, which has now been added to the high school's article. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS too. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per Gene93k this win is not significant enough to have its own page, particularly when it has been mentioned on the school's page - Dumelow (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ArcAngel (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non Notable Canyouhearmenow 23:50, 28 February 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. Pretty clear cut case of Future album. No citations. Title will be redirected to Kutless where it is already mentioned in greater detail. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Know That You're Alive

To Know That You're Alive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Also question of WP:CRYSTAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kutless until notabiility for seperate article is established. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Even main Kutless article only says this album is "expected" to be released. tomasz. 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:49, 4 March 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 clear consensus, which defaults to Keep.....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juliet O'Neill

Juliet O'Neill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is basically a biography article for a person who had only one notable event happen to them. There's simply nothing else notable that this reporter has done other than things directly linked to having her home raided by the RCMP concerning the Maher Arar case. And the article on that case already discusses it (and I just added in whatever additional information THIS article had into the section there, which was not much). A biography article should not be centered around one solitary event...especially since most of the discussion of that event concerns the repercussions in the police/courts, not the actual actions that O'Neill took. In short, doing one notable thing so far is not enough reason for an article, especially when that one notable thing already has sufficient coverage elsewhere. Someone reading Maher Arar will see the Juliet O'Neill's name in blue, click on it, and learn...absolutely nothing, because everything notable about her has already been covered in the article they WERE reading. Unless somone can come up with anything else notable that she's done, this is better served as a redirect into Maher Arar: Initial media controversy. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and BLP1E. There's no value added to this article and I can't find any sources not related to the covered issue. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, it seems counter-intuitive to say "Nothing notable happened...oh, and the article is just filled with reports of the legal fall-out after her incident" - O'Neill is most easily compared to the Canadian version of Judith Miller (journalist), the fact the article in its current state bothers you should push you to improve the article, not try to have it deleted. There are 4,000 news articles about her role in the Arar case (notice these are articles about O'Neill, not written by her) - so if you can't find any sources, I'm afraid you're either blind or not looking. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dig to the next pages on Google [7] and the number falls to <450, all of which are about the Arar issue and many of which are duplicated content - check your glasses. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any coverage about her work OUTSIDE of the Arar case? Because I looked, and didn't find anything. I fully acknowledge that her involvement with the Arar case was notable, I simply do not think that there is enough notability to warrant a biography of her. She is not a notable person, it was a notable event that happened to involve her, and the event is already well-covered on Wikipedia. It is not the current state of the article that bothers me, per se, it is the fact that she is not notable beyond one event. 4000 references to that same one event does not change that. If you can find multiple reliable sources that support her notability beyond the Arar case, I welcome its inclusion. I don't believe they can be found, but feel free to prove me wrong. This is a textbook case of WP: ONEEVENT, which everyone should be familiar with. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And a brief read of Judith Miller (journalist) tells me that she is notable for several different events, such as the coverage of the WMD case, the Plame affair, and writing several books on subjects unrelated to either of those cases. If you can provide the same breadth of notability for Juliet O'Neill, then I will agree with you that she should have her own biography. --Ig8887 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I added details on her 1986 flash of fame as the only reporter to capture Gotlieb's slap, and publish the story - leading to "international" attention. But really, what do you call "working on" a story, she's "worked on" the Chalk River story the same Miller "worked on" the WMDs story -- I don't really see a grand difference between the two. Ultimately, they are both best-known for a single "event", but because that event had political and judicial consequence, they are meritable. I mean even Ziad Jarrah is only notable for "a single event". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not other biographies suffer from this problem doesn't affect this one. Sidetracking this AfD into whether or not Judith Miller is an appropriate biography doesn't change the fact that this one isn't, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The information you added doesn't really tell us anything about O'Neill, other than that yes, she has reported on other stories, which I guess confirms that she's a reporter. Was she a significant part of that other story, or was she just there? Because the link you provided literally says nothing other than, "She was there and reported it." --Ig8887 (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep per Sherurcij. Is notable for multiple events. I'd also suggest that given the non-negative nature of the the involvement with the Arar case and the extreme attention that that got it might be enough to override BLP1E issues anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable subject in her homeland, connected with a very notable case. However I urge all information to be carefully policed to make sure it's WP:BLP-compliant. That includes possibly locking down the article to non-registered editors. Wikipedia does not avoid controversial topics or articles on people involved in legal issues, but this one has the potential to cause problems if not handled correctly. 23skidoo (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Ahar case. She isn't independently notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be giving undue weight to a single legal action in the Arar case, to waste five paragraphs out of thirty, discussing the reporter was had a legal battle of her own in his article, imho Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I was already able to boil eveything that wasn't already in the Maher Arar article down into a single additional two-sentence paragraph, then. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the freedom of press issue is sufficient notability. It will be a permanent precedent & possibly in other countries also.DGG (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable in her own right; brief if intense media attention thanks to the infamy of the Arar case up here in Canada, but beyond that completely unknown. Fails WP:BIO/BLP1E + NOTNEWS for good measure. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability based on multiple events, including an ongoing legal battle that transcends any one individual incident used as a flimsy pretense to trot out the usual WP:BLP1E excuse. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is clearly satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 2 March 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 g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urgurburgerfurger

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

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:29, 28 February 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 (for the third time). No indication of notability other than uncited "reviews". NawlinWiki (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Child Uprising

Odd Child Uprising (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Google search shows only 10 ghits [8]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shadows of Isildur

Shadows of Isildur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence from reliable third-party sources that this MUD is notable. Jfire (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - it's been on my watchlist for a while now, and the only coverage I've found is from directory entries and forum discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 February 2008

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I've yet to see a notable MUD article, and this one isn't any exception. Delete per WP:WEB and lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew and others; this is just about the definition of WP:GAMEGUIDE. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:59, 2 March 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 - Philippe | Talk 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skyaking

Hey, hang on a minute, folks. I put this on, and I can assure you that the sport is genuine: there are a lot of people pushing the limits of what can be done in skydiving: as well as kayaks, there are folks skydiving on snowboards, and there's even a guy done it on skis. If that particular video is a spoof (and I've no reason to think that it is:it's from the playak website, which is pretty reputable)there are plenty more - just have a look on Youtube. I just put that one on as an example: I wasn't trying to park anything anywhere as the guy below suggested. Here's another one [9]

I'm really surprised by people's hostile reaction to this: I'm just a kayaker like the rest of you: it's just that my interest is more in toward the extreme end of finding out what you can do in a boat. If you don't believe the skyacking, have a search around for snow kayaking - downhill, slalom and luge. It's good fun and is really taking off. Indeed, some people are beginning to modify boats for this. And if you still don't believe in the extreme, take a look at the hydrofoil kayak, the "flyack" or "flyak".

And then, of course, there's Shaun Baker's jet-powered kayak which was shown on the BBC TV programme "Top Gear".

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

This is made up stuff, for sure, but I can't justify it for a speedy delete. Gary King (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Made-up tripe, only link is to NN video. All other ghits are to NN sources, mostly to other videos. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I would have speedied this: half made-up nonsense, half feeble excuse for a place to park an external link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 28 February 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 all a7, no plausible claims of notability, no sources, apparent hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cerebral Stroke

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

Also included in this nomination:

• Sinner Monkeys doing Brutality on Children of Guardians who have Cerebral Stroke
• Mirror Image (Album)

Non-notable unsigned band. Absolutely no relevant Ghits (not even a Myspace) and no news coverage. No secondary source coverage. No reason to believe this band is notable. No evidence of claims they have achieved "worldwide fame" because of a tour in Japan or that they are even well known in Serbia. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND. There's a possible WP:COI issue here, too. Redfarmer (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Redfarmer --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF!!!!!! - Why is this even a discussion? This is obvious vandalism...There shouldn't even be an AfD discussion about this. Those pages should be deleted outright and that user blocked. I say give the retard a boot in the ass, the one with a hard leather steel-tipped toes...oh yeah and DELETE! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete of an apparent hoax. Creator, Ne0fl00d3r (talk · contribs), seems to have shown up during the block of Nightmare991 (talk · contribs), the author of the prior deleted version of this article. WP:RFCU may be appropriate to determine if this is a case of block-evading sockpuppetry... — Scientizzle 22:18, 28 February 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 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed McLane

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

The guy played in 1 game in 1907 -- does that qualify as notable? ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable baseball player. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Major league baseball players have always been considered notable on Wikipedia no matter how short their careers. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Professional athletes are notable per WP:BIO and Major league baseball players are notable if they appeared in at least one game per WP:BASEBALL notability guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Played in the majors. But, I'm seeing more and more one-game articles popping up lately. Why can't "we" first create articles for people who had real careers? There are plenty of Hall of Famers whose articles are barely past stub status - why not expand those first? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep he's notable per current guidelines, as was discussed in a recent AfD. It's hard to delete based on a guideline change in the future. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, notable per current guidelines at WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, annoyedly. Hopefully someday the one-game-is-all-it-takes guideline will go away, but until then we're stuck with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, not annoyedly at all. A major league player is a major league player, regardless of the length of his career. I went ahead and added a source to the article, expanding it a (little) bit. I don't have time right now to do more, but even one-game stubs CAN be expanded, if you're willing to put in the work. Remember: just because you yourself may not want to do something doesn't mean that it's impossible for anyone, anywhere to do it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:BIO says "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league" are notable. Athletes today who have played in only one MLB game still get quite a bit of press, so it's reasonable to assume that in past years, when newspapers had much larger sports sections, the same would hold true and that plenty of coverage will be found when someone takes the time to go to the newspaper archive. (Which is why WP:BIO says what it says.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - played in major league baseball, therefore meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - satisfies notability criteria in WP:BIO#Athletes. I've added another paragraph on his major league game. BRMo (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - yes, it does. --Canley (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - current WP criteria says keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - meets, WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:BASEBALL notability criteria. --Borgarde^talk 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO#Athletes among others. It's also an example of where Wikipedia shines the best in turning the spotlight on unique topics. 23skidoo (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He played in the majors -- why in the world would you delete this?Jgebis (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Caknuck (talk) 00:38, 1 March 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Soundtrack to My Life (G.A.G.E. album)

The Soundtrack to My Life (G.A.G.E. album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about an unreleased album and does not cite any sources. Unreleased albums are generally non-notable. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I found zero reliable sources. The sources I did find were from 2006 with this album as an "upcoming" release. No indication G.A.G.E. is notable. So, pick a reason: 1)No reliable sources. 2) No substantial coverage. 3) Non-notable artist. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Besides, common sense tells us that if the musician isn't notable, their music isn't either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:48, 4 March 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. Default to KEEP. - Philippe | Talk 04:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Brier

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

notability of individual unclear - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Prod removed without discussion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability for politicians for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time. Should he be elected as a Member of Parliament some time in the future then the article can be restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Having been president of the Cambridge Union and winner of the World Universities Debating Championship are in themselves indication of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 07:02, 2 March 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 nomination withdrawn, meets speedy keep as no other commenters supporting deletion. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duff Beer (The Simpsons)

Duff Beer (The Simpsons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't merit it's own article by a long way, I saw that there are more than 600 articles on 'The Simpsons' no way does one tv show of any kind need that many articles about it, no matter how many people on Wikipedia happen to like The Simpsons (I like the Simpsons) Restepc (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my point is that this is not important enough to warrant it's own seperate article....I know that millions of people have heard of Duff Beer via the show, but that doesn't mean it should have it's own article, it's a part of the highly notable Simpsons tv show, but it doesn't stand up on its own IMO Restepc (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation it seems that the Duff Beer brand is well known and notable at least in the usa, and not simply a random fictional product like Krusty-Os or...whatever. I'm withdrawing my nomination....as far as I can tell this page will automatically be removed in a few days, if there's anything I need/could do to withdraw this just say on this page. Restepc (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep No case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - has significant out-of-universe notability, as proven by the sources. EJF (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So who decides this in the end? an Administrator? Restepc (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• It depends, if there is a clear consensus to keep, a non-administator may close it; but yes, normally an administrator decides whether there is a consensus to keep or delete. If there is no consensus, the article is kept. Normally the discussion will last around 5 days, although sometimes it can last only a few hours if there is a snowball consensus. EJF (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd really prefer an admin to decide this one as I suspect that a lot of Simpsons fans may just pile on the keep votes without any actual arguments....like the first two votes for example. Restepc (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:FICT? Your argument for deletion has nothing to do with policy or guidelines, it's basically "The Simpsons has a lot of articles about it, so this should be deleted."

• Quite right. To Restepc, I did not vote and I did give an argument, the article is verifiable, has a neutral point of view and it is very notable given the amount of reliable sources available to verify and write an encyclopedic article on this piece of popular culture. EJF (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Has real world notability and passes the WP:FICT guidelines. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, WP:SNOW, WP:NOGOOD. Redfarmer (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable beyond the series. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No no, that's not my argument at all, my argument is that it is not notable in itself, it is a part of the simpsons which is notable, but being a part of something notable doesn't make it notable. Restepc (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

People have tried to gain off the popularity of Duff Beer by making their own Duff Beer and marketing it (and there are sources to prove it) and have been sued in the process. That right there is real world notability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, real world notability. Passes WP:FICT. Nom smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To EJF, I disagree.....there are plenty of sources for this because there are plenty of sources on the simpsons, but I doubt there are many or any sources about Duff Beer that do not mention the simpsons.

It is a PART of something notable, but it is not notable by itself. Restepc (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Nowhere in notability guidelines does it say the sources have to not mention the primary thing which gave the article in question exposure, in this case, The Simpsons. Redfarmer (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh and we've been trying to tell you that the article quotes sources outside the show. Redfarmer (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

scorpion, could you provide me with some links about that, perhaps Duff Beer is more individually noted on that side of the pond in which case I'll withdraw my nomination......travellingcar, as I specifically said that I like the simpsons I think your claims are more than tenuos. Restepc (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Read anything in the "Duff beer scams" section of the article, a lot of it is sourced. As for the individual notability and your argument about everything about Duff Beer, I highly doubt that any source about Homer or Bart or Matt Groening would not mention the show. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I am sure Homer Simpson or Bart Simpson have been referenced hundreds of times without saying (from the Simpsons) afterwards.....I doubt....or had previously severely doubted, that there would be any sources simply saying 'Duff Beer' without saying 'from the simpsons' or something similar. Restepc (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To EJF, I apologise for saying that you didn't have an argument, I'm not familiar with wikislang and assumed you were simply making a joke....I even went to look at the article expecting to see that one of the sources was a website claiming to be from another dimension or something.... Restepc (talk) 18:24, 28 February 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laut

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

Disambiguation page with only one legitimate entry: Laut Island. The rest violate WP:DISAMBIG#Partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• replace with redirect per nom. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 1 March 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 - Not a lot of interest in this AfD but what we got (even after a relisting) was adequate in my view to come to the view that a simple deletion of material and a redirect would suffice to cover the material (which is already in the redirected to article) and still allow others to return material from the previous version. --VS ^talk 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic IAL

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

Discusses a very abstract concept and sounds a lot like original research. Such an article could be written about a "Dravidian IAL", too. All the examples are non-notable, except possibly Tutonish, which the article claims to be "a famous historical example from 1902". If it is indeed notable, then an article could be written about it, but i don't think that there should be an article about this abstract concept of "Germanic IAL". Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the article in question is weak in its current form. That shouldn't necessarily be a reason to delete it, but at this moment I'd say merge and redirect to International auxiliary language would be a good temporary solution. There is definitely more that can be said about the subject, though. I disagree with the entirely subjective statement that "all the example are non-notable": that's not for you to decide, Amir. And I have to say, I feel a growing dissatisfaction with the way the word notability is being abused recently. Even if a subject may not be notable enough for its own article, that shouldn't mean that it is forbidden to mention it elsewhere. To give an example, I've often heard the argument that "Language X is not notable enough for an article on its own, so let's move this stuff to a broader article that discusses the whole genre." Subsequently, someone else says: "Hey, that article was deleted, so it shouldn't be here either." And what remains is an article without major examples of the subject. Not really worthy of preserving it either. Is that how deletionists achieve their goals? If I recall correctly, that is precisely how the article on Germanic IALs came into being. Even if the article may not exactly be a masterpiece, and even if the potential value of an article on Germanic or Dravidian IALs is questionable, I don't like the process used here. From this point of view I really regret that somebody speedily deleted an article about Slavic IAL recently, without even giving a single reason; because this is definitely a notable topic with a history long enough for a good and interesting article. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the Slavic IAL article for speedy deletion, because it was essentially the deleted Slovio article with a different opening paragraph. You may start a deletion review on it.

Slovio and Folkspraak were not cases of "delete and merge", but "delete". There is a difference between subjects which aren't important enough for an article, but can be mentioned in other articles and subjects which shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. A red link to Folkspraak in another article in the main space is an invitation to write the article; but when someone goes to write the article, he sees a big notice saying "You are re-creating a page that was deleted." I think that this shouldn't happen. It's important, however, that you'll understand that it is my opinion and not the Wikipedia party line; i'd be glad to see more discussion about it. You may bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy.

As for merging Germanic IAL into International auxiliary language - i don't see what is here that can be merged. The main IAL article already says: "The ongoing Folkspraak project aims at creating a pan-Germanic IAL, whilst Europaio is based on the northern dialects of proto-Indo-European languages." Everything else in the Germanic IAL article is original research. If it wasn't original research, i wouldn't think that it should be deleted, and it would even be a pretty good, albeit short, article. (In the first place, AfD isn't supposed to judge how well an article is written, but whether the subject should be included in Wikipedia.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as above until better sources appear. We can't hang an article on a Geocities page. This could be summarized in a sentence or two, excising the original research. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 28 February 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 determined. Default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dance Mixes

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

This article is a hoax part of a sprawling garden of inaccurate information that has largely been removed by speedy (and otherwise) deletion at this point. The article was rejected for CSD G3 with encouragement to fix it; removal of the hoax material results in an article that would fail CSD A1. However, this mess is probably better suited to AFD. The remix album pictured is not by DJ Raiden, was not released on RCA, and was not released in 2008. Its track listing is not what is listed. In fact, the track listing is easy to confirm as a hoax, since the back cover of the album is conveniently pictured, with different (and fewer) tracks! In fact, there is probably no DJ Raiden at all (under AFD, here as a hoax). In fact, there are no shortage of associated hoaxes. This AN/I thread revealed more problems with a doctored image file for the now-speedied Wena Naty (song) article and a now-speedied redirect to the Main Page. Meanwhile, back to this article, the actual remix album pictured does not meet inclusion requirements. It was a low-quality, low-fi album "released" by self-claimed label BumHong Records[10] (which does not appear in anything even remotely close to a reliable source) in 2005. So, we're left to choose between an article with patently false information, an article with no hope of notability, or deletion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jespinos (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment : I removed the false information. Europe22 (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Deliberately false information added by MisterWiki, which is considered vandalism. What guarantees there are that this will not be repeated in the future?. Jespinos (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I understand, but it's the same thing for all articles on WP : we're not sure that information given is true. We must keep an eye on each article, including this one. Europe22 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Because the disc is real, was released by RCA records, see the references in the article. --MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep : Yes, the album was released, but this article needs to be expanded (charts, critical reception, credits...). Europe22 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 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. Davewild (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Underwater communication project at NJIT

Underwater communication project at NJIT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely non-notable university project. Nearly speedable but it had a prod which an IP removed. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as original reasearch. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a course catalogue. Has become a fork of Underwater Communication using Vector sensor - A new idea - also up for deletion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per RHaworth RogueNinja_talk 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Same topic as Underwater Communication using Vector sensor - A new idea, which was created earlier and has much more content so takes priority. Regardless of whether that survives AfD or not, we don't need two articles on the same topic. (neither of them has the right title but we're not discussing what the right title is). Qwfp (talk) 20:12, 29 February 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Investigative auditing

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

This is an expanded version of previously deleted material; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative auditing. The article remains a neologism for which no notability has been shown; while I haven't checked every link, and the author has used many external links where Wikilinks would be more appropriate, the only real references given are to search engine results for the phrase "investigative auditing" in a medical publication database. The author seems to want to draw some sort of distinction between "investigative auditing" and the better-established phrase forensic accounting, but the distinction seems elusive. This may be intended to promote a commercial business; previous versions contained a logo. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a tautologous neologism. The whole point of auditing is that it is investigative. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 29 February 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 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asad Abidi

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

Repeatedly speedied and contested on the grounds that being an IEEE fellow is an automatic qualification for notability (which it clearly isn't, there are over five thousand such fellows, my uncle is a fellow of the comparable IET and I'm not going to be writing an article on him any time soon). What we need for an article are substantial non-trivial independent sources. What we have here are two sources, one IEEE and one at the subject's university, so neither of which are independent. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep - seems to meet the standards at WP:PROF; it needs improvement, not deletion this early in the game. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (after edit conflict) member of the National Academy of Engineering which is a peer-elected body recognising substantial/significant contributions. Fellowship of IEEE also tends towards notability as also peer-elected. References given in the article also list various prizes/awards. Guy's editorial intentions regarding his family are irrelevant. Dean of School at a university, full professor at UCLA, these also are "above the average" in terms of academic notability. Sources can be improved, but deletion would prevent this and thus damage encyclopædia building. IEEE would be the only reliable source for fellowship. DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep despite lack of independent sources is an invalid !vote per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Feel free to add sources. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NAE membership directory added as a source. Needing to improve refs is a lousy reason for deletion. Keep for notability is perfectly valid as a !vote. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also refer to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing which would seem to address Guy's statements about sources. DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies #2 & #6 of WP:PROF per ref given in article & [11]. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm afraid being a dean is notable, if accurate. IEEE Fellow and NAE member seem not to be signifcant recognition, though. "He is one of the only two Pakistani-origin members of the NAE" might be evidence of notability, except that that information seems to have been written by him. His being "the first Dean of LUMS SSE", which seems to have been written by the interviewer, seems more notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I would say that being a Fellow of IEEE is notable as their website states:

"The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and shall be conferred by the Board of Directors upon a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of the IEEE fields of interest. The accomplishments that are being honored shall have contributed importantly to the advancement or application of engineering, science and technology, bringing the realization of significant value to society. [...] The IEEE Fellows are an elite group from around the globe. The IEEE looks to the Fellows for guidance and leadership as the world of electrical and electronic technology continues to evolve."[12]

I also believe that membership of NAE is notable as their website state:

"The procedures for nomination and election [...] involve a search in all fields of engineering by present members of the NAE for outstanding engineers with identifiable contributions or accomplishments in one or both of the following categories:

- Engineering research, practice, or education, including, where appropriate, significant contributions to the engineering literature.

- Pioneering of new and developing fields of technology, making major advancements in traditional fields of engineering, or developing/implementing innovative approaches to engineering education."[13]

Both of which, I believe, show he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field" as per point 2 of WP:PROF. --JD554 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep per Arthur. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Dean, fellow of IEEE, member of NAE, and the two IEEE awards, are all accomplishments which individually would be enough to convince me that the article should be kept as a pass of WP:PROF. Put all five together and the case is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above.Noor Aalam (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per all above. Meets criterion 2 and 6 of WP:PROF. The speedy deletion tag was actually removed by the user who added it after the article had been improved. That same user even removed the notability tag. That this article was nominated within 1 1/2 hours of its creation and after all the improvements to boot is disruptive and only discourages new editors. --Oakshade (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep NAE is the exact equivalent of the NAS and is notability. We should work on getting articles for all of them. IEEE Fellow needs further consideration--its not nearly at the same level; I dont think it would necessarily be enough by itself, but in this case it isnt by itself. The Deanship and it would be sufficient. But given NAE, the rest is irrelevant. I think its time to add : myself/my uncle/etc. is/isnt notable/non-notable as an argument not to be used for AfD. DGG (talk) 17:20, 1 March 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 - Philippe | Talk 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hirofumi Nohara

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

Non-notable Ratagonia (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Merge details into Half Dome. His death occoured at Yosemite National ParkHalf Dome a very well recognized location internationally. Coverage of his death appears on ESPN [14], The Sacramento Bee [15], San Francisco Chronicle[16]AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Dying at a notable location does not make people notable. His death is and/or can be covered as appropriate on the Half Dome page. Ratagonia (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge key details into Half Dome article. -DAJF (talk) 10:14, 29 February 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 to delete. Default to Keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Combat!

Ultimate Combat! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable collectible card game. no assertion of notability. No reliable, verifiable, or independent sources that go any further than show the game exists. Of the links provided, one is a wiki, two are dead, and the last is a retailer site. DarkAudit (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I have added an assertion of notability with relevant citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That book is still only a single source. The wiki and retailer are not generally considered reliable sources, and are not truly independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I consider Boardgame Geek to be highly reliable (better than Wikipedia). Anyway, I have added another citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 28 February 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, geesh, not these people again. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruddi and the Gays

Ruddi and the Gays (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Might be a hoax, no valid sources (links to Homestar Runner, Urban dictionary, and other unrelated items) Google and IMDB searchs turn up with nothing related. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This must be a mistake, I have the first couple of seasons at my house. How have you not seen it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooblet1 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Already gone, speedied TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:08, 28 February 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, although admittedly a small consensus, it is a convincing one. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mal Reynols

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

Unable to locate on Google any non-wiki-related or independent confirmation of the existence of any radio presenter named Mal Reynols or Mal Reynolds. Lyttlewoman (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no notability regardless of wether he exists or not Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 29 February 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 and possibly expand with valid sources. (Tagged as such) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drainage channel

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

A dicdef that's already been transwikied to wiktionary. I see no encyclopedic content or notability from which to create an article. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is the right place for this, and it's already there. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Drainage is a prerequisite for agriculture in vast areas of the globe e.g. the Fenlands in the UK. There's an article to be written here covering design of channels to achieve desired flow rates &c. This rather poor stub is a placeholder for that article. Failing a keep, I'd suggest a redirect into one of the better general drainage articles. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Call your cable TV provider to receive The Drainage Channel. Mandsford (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete not a dictionary. Article has already been transwikied.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is already more than a dictionary definition - the materials from which drainage channels are made is encyclopedic information, not part of the definition of the term. And, as Nunquam Dormio says, there is plenty more that could be written about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Article is more than a dictionary defition already, as stubby -- and lordy is it stubby -- as it is. You can do whole courses in civil engineering on drainage channels, which means there is the clear possibility of expanding into an encyclopedic discussion of the subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• suggest Redirect to ditch which seems to cover the same territory in fewer syllables. Mangoe (talk) 04:40, 1 March 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 10:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dudley's Corner

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

I know that all places are generally notable per this proposal but this appears to be a truck stop/rest area, not a town/village. I find no evidence that it's in any way a notable rest area. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:V. Searches indicate this place is a truck stop in Latimer, Iowa, no contrary evidence found. I can't reach GNIS for 100% confirmation, but this item erased my doubts: [17]. Aside from some, local disputes, no WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 February 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 consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vector (physical)

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

A content fork of User:Firefly322's from Vector (spatial). Despite clear consensus at Talk:Vector (spatial) that the new fork should be moved out of the main article space, the author created a new, virtually identical fork Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) (also with very little actual content). I recommend deletion. Let's have at most one unsanctioned content fork at a time, please. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nominator. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, but WP:CFORK doesn't seem to be a speedy critereon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Note, I was not invited by the nominator. I just happened to be watching the "article". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. WP:CFORK is not a speedy criterion, but No content is. Also, the same lack of content was completely copied to a separate location. It seems a fairly uncontroversial case for speedy. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  It has references and a lead paragraph. I doubt that would satisfy CSD A1 or CSD A3. --Sturm 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC).

  Clear consensus has not been reach. I think the facts clearly show that few to no editors understand the difference between a physical vector entity as described in a 1st year physics text and a mathematical vector as found in a linear algebra text. The motivation behind vector (physical) is to focus on vectors as physical entities. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Morever, the article on Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) is completely different. It in fact is an article about vectors conforming to the Gibbs-Heaviside vectorial system (a mathematical entity obeying specifc mathematical rules, whereas a physical vector obeys physical laws justifying the article vector (physical) ). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  I created these articles when it became clear that the majority of editors of vector (spatial) were unable to see the obvious distinction between these two very different meanings of the word vector. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  The distinction is between an arbitrary vector space and a contravariant vector (informally, a vector corresponding to a "direction" in space), a distinction you have demonstrated you don't understand (e.g. you claimed momentum was not a spatial/contravariant vector). Nor is defining "vectors" as things in physical laws useful, as a huge variety of vector spaces (including very abstract mathematical vector spaces that have nothing to do with spatial "directions") are used in physical laws. None of which you appear to comprehend, as it has been explained to you repeatedly. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both forks. This has been discussed to death on Talk:Vector (spatial) and there is no justification for a fork. Firefly has nonstandard notions about vectors that do not belong in Wikipedia. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  I think Mr. Steven Johnson is wrong and I wish to appeal to someone who can be more objective: someone who didn't create the term vector (spatial). Specifically, Mr. Johnson apparently claims that a vector as a physical quantity is a nonstandard notion. He further seems unable to see differences between various mathematical vectorial systems such as the conventional Gibbs-Heaviside Vectorial System and others which arise as a consequence of mathematical vector spaces. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Sigh. I never claimed that vectors in physical laws are nonstandard notions; what I have explained repeatedly is that it is neither useful nor standard to define a "vector" as something described by physical laws. Real numbers are used in physical laws too, but that doesn't mean we need a real number (physics) article. But I'm not going to repeat the whole debate again here. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Yet standard physics texts, calculus texts, and even dictionaries define vectors as something described by physical laws. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  No they don't. Even in the quotes you provided to "prove" your point, they say that there are things in physics which are described by vectors, which is correct and uncontroversial, not that all vectors are things in physics. The mere fact that many students first learn about vectors in a physics class doesn't change this. Many students first learn about derivatives in a physics class too, and derivatives often appear in physical laws, but that doesn't mean derivatives are defined as operations appearing in physical laws. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Yes they do. The quotes provided state that there are physical quantities called vectors and that these physical quantities obey mathematical laws (i.e., physical laws). They don't state that there are mathematical entities called vectors, which may or may not obey physical laws. Yet they nor I am denying the reality or value of mathematical vectors. And, as an analogy, just as the "space" in a "vector space" or in a "Hilbert space" has nothing to do with a dimensional definition of physical space, this mathematical borrowing and defining of the word "space" doesn’t mean that physical space defined by experimental fact is non-standard. Many students first learn about the experimentally verified properties of physical space in physics class as well, and physical space is part of all standard physical law, but that doesn't mean that a useful mathematical definition of a "vector space" or a "Hilbert space" can or should exclude or depreciate a standard definition of physical space or its properties. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• delete duplicate, contentless content fork. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. When people disagree they should talk and obey consensus, rather than creating forks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh. Usually, good intellectual manners would prevent such a comment like Cheeser's or Alexandrov's without some subject-related reason or at least some imagination. I believe my argument on the grounds of intellectual fairness deserves that much. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No useful content. As noted above, the creator has nonstandard ideas about vectors, has flooded the talk page of vector (spatial) by quotes whose meaning he doesn't understand, but having failed to make a coherent argument, proceeded with creating the forks that reflect his unique view. Evidently, hopes to prevail by attrition (started to flood this page, too). Arcfrk (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have not advocated a seance with Netwon. I have not used comments I don't understand. Nor have I failed to make a coherent argument. On this page, I have tried to show Mr. Johnson and the entire mathematics community reverence and respect, by putting forth a very logical and sound position for standard physical thought. I believe the possibility for deletion of my work deserves a fair response to the facts of my position. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- There isn't any difference between a mathematical vector and a vector you're using in Phyiscs -- THEY'RE THE SAME THING. If you're advocating a new position, that's original research and isn't allowed on wikipedia (WP:NOR) JoeD80 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  That is nonsense There are lots of "vectors" in mathematics that have no physical interpretation. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  My point was that a vector in physics follows the same rules as those in math, not that all math vectors are used in physics. JoeD80 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a content fork in that Vector (spatial) is mainly a mathematical treatment while this article proposes a treatment from the standpoint of physics/engineering, which, from the outline section headings, seems to be quite different. The competing article Vector (spatial) seems to explain the topic poorly and, for example, has almost no inline citations to support its detailed content. It also seems to be too much of a how to. We have a variety of even worse articles such as Coordinate vector (which has no sources at all) and so the contention that this subject must be covered within a single article seems overdone. There is some contention within the talk page for Vector (spatial) as to the best name for the article and this further supports the idea that other article titles and treatments are worth trying. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Figuring out how to translate physical problems into vectors is an issue, but the vector math is identical. JoeD80 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment One issue that you failed to address is whether there is need for the virtually identical forks vector (physical) and vector (Gibbs-Heaviside), both created around the same time by the same author. Would you be in favor of keeping one and deleting the other? Silly rabbit (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  The outline for vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) indicates that it is a historical treatment which is different again. I'm not sure the title is the best but it's hard to say without seeing more. If User:Firefly322 wishes to exert himself in that direction and the fine list of sources that he has prepared stands up, then why should we stand in his way? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  The alternative of userifying the articles, given the rather broad consensus at Talk:Vector (spatial) that the new article(s) emerged as a POV/content-fork was rejected by Firefly322. I would be willing to allow the articles to be userified until they have some content to speak of. This, it seems, would grant the editor the ability to progress the articles without contentiously cluttering the mainspace with perceived forks. Would you support a vote of userify? Silly rabbit (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Many of us agree that the current vector (spatial) article needs improvement, but that's not a justification for confused forking into poorly-defined and almost content-free articles using nonstandard definitions. We should stand in his way because his list of sources does not support his position, and his understanding of this subject is fundamentally confused. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There is no difference between mathematical and physical vectors. One is a subset of the other RogueNinja_talk 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  There are differences, as explained in some of the existing content - units and notation, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pressed to find a notation for vector spaces used in mathematics that is not also used in the physical sciences, or vice versa; I don't see any example in "the existing content". As for the use of units, the same argument could be applied to fork almost every single article in mathematics that applies to a subject used in physical sciences; should we have a real number (physics) article because in physics most real numbers come with units? The real problem is that "vector (physics)" is not specific in any useful way for an article, because there are so many types of vector spaces used in the physical sciences, nor is Firefly's definition supported by the references (despite his assertions to the contrary, which are based on a flawed understanding on his part). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The notation example I was thinking of from the existing content is Note: In introductory physics classes, these three special vectors are often instead denoted i, j, k at Vector (spatial)#Representation of a vector. There will be other notations in other domains such as navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad example: that notation is also often used in calculus classes etcetera, so it is hardly unique to physics. Conversely, physicists often use other notations too. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the i, j, k notation comes from William Rowan Hamilton's quaternions. The letters were introduced for this purpose by Hamilton himself (though I think he used capital I, J, and K). And this notation is still used almost universally in both mathematics and physics for its original designated purpose. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So this is another example of the weakness of the Vector (spatial) article? Going back to that, I note the point about Covariance and contravariance of vectors in which the language of physics and mathematics is said to be different and contradictory. Since these articles are too obscure for a general readership, better clarity is needed and this may well be served by the distinct treatments envisaged by Firefly. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Index notation indicates a tensor, while i, j, k notation indicates a vector. Thus, Vector (spatial)'s preference of the index notation e₁, e₂, e₃ over the Hamiltonian-Gibbs-Heaviside notation of i, j, k indicates an unstated predilection for tensor analysis. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (I am the author) Though I'm certainly not claiming to be an all-knowning, omniscient, divine being or anything close, I maintain that these definitions are not vague nor flawed and that their purpose is to define a vector as a quantity obeying physical laws. It's especially important to add that neither they nor I am denying the reality or value of the mathematical or physical entity that has, is, or will be described in vector (spatial). --Firefly322 (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  I'm just curious, how does a quantity obey physical laws? The only things that obey physical laws are physical objects. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  Physical laws govern energy and matter through space and time. In scientific usage, particles and quantities refer to different magnitudes and multitudes of mass as well as energy. A physical vector as a quantity would be a quantity of some kind of energy. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  I afford you all due respect and all good faith, but I have no idea what any of what you just said means. Once again, a vector is not a physical object, it is an abstract representation of a physical object (or of particular physical circumstances). If I have four apples, the apples obey the laws of physics - "four" does not. If I am traveling 40mph east in my car, my car obeys the laws of physics - "40mph east" does not. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  On page 10 of Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths (a well-respected physicist in good standing), there's a comment that even though a set of 1X3 matrixes with the of components of X pears, Y apples, and Z bananas add like a vector, "it's obviously not a vector, in the physicist's sense of the word, because it doesn't really have a direction." --Firefly322 (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with my question. Do you or do you not understand the fact that vectors do not obey the laws of physics? The physical objects or circumstances they describe are what obey the laws of physics. Vectors are abstract representations of such objects/circumstances. Do you believe there are physical objects called vectors that one could, say, pick up and put into a sack or something? --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  It's funny you should say that because I was just observing that the Vector (spatial) article starts by saying that a vector is an object. The more I look at that article, the less I like it. Anyway, I suppose that Firefly's point is that a physical vector has dimensions such as length/time and that these attributes go beyond the abstract geometrical concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  If I were generous, or perhaps under other circumstances, I'd have assumed that (or something like that) is what he meant. However, even if we disregard the lack of content, the forking, whatever other issues, he just substantiated the existence of this article by asserting that this was a different topic than vector (spatial). --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article makes multiple errors in the very first sentence, and the error rate does not diminish. For example: A vector is a quantity with direction conforming to physical laws... eh? Vectors are often used express physical laws, but certainly do not conform to them; vectors are abstract objects. ...physical laws such as quantities of displacement, velocity, and field strength. Displacement, velocity and field strength are not "physical laws" in any shape or form. Vector here refers to a measurable quantity and should not be confused with the mathematical symbol also called a vector vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) Huh? The vectors in physics are the same as the vectors in mathematics, and should be confused with one another! That is the whole point! The rest of the article is equally hopeless; delete the thing post-haste. linas (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary fork. I find the argument that this is equivalent to having a equally useless "Number (physics)" compelling. The only thing here that might conceivably be useful would be a list such as List of physical quantities represented by vectors. --Itub (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard wording for this apparently, compellingly useless number (physical) analysis is unit analysis or dimensional analysis (these are woking links). Do the respectable Mr. Johnson and the respectable Mr. Linas propose the deletion of the wikipedia entry on experimentally-based, scientific dimensional analysis, since Mr. Johnson's argument "proves" his point that it is a fork of proof-based mathematic numbers? --Firefly322 (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Take as another example of the analysis of a quantity vector analysis (i.e. "the analysis of quantities having magnitude and direction" from 2002 Encyclopedia America). This also as standard as physical unit analysis and in fact a google search or a book title search or even looking through a Britanica ("quantities such as velocity") or Encyclopedia America reveals vector analysis as entries. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We do have a legitimate article on vector analysis (actually a redirect to vector calculus), which is not the same as your unnecessary fork of vector (spatial). --Itub (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Try Mathematical constant vs Physical constant. It's like the difference between Applied Mathematics and Pure Mathematics. There's a reason that these are different articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is an accepted standard on Wikipedia that such argument by analogy (or what one sometimes calls WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not really a compelling reason to, say, keep this "vector (physical)" article. We should not be arguing by analogy, nor by the existence of some other math/physics duality, nor by Firefly's preferred hyperbolic strawman argument. I will point out that dimensional analysis is not a fork in any way shape or form from number, not in the sense that Itub clearly intended. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The point at issue here is Itub's Delete rationale. This is the converse which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gives as:

Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.

So, Itub's rationale is weak. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And so even if article like vector (spatial) has existed for 5 or so years, its mere length of time in existance isn't proof that there wasn't justifiable grounds for its deletion, if I understand the legal nuances of this wikipedia sticking point, correctly. Not that I'm saying there are such grounds for the deletion of vector (spatial), just that its mere existance shouldn't be used to agrue against the existence of vector (physical). --Firefly322 (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Itub used an example to explain his rationale, not as his rationale. On the other hand Firefly decided "fine, then why don't we delete all physics-related articles that have a math equivalent?" (paraphrase) which smacks of strawmanning and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For example, I think the eminent Mr. Colonel Warden has even listed excellent reasons that would satisfy wiki deletion policy if someone did nominate vector (spatial) for deletion. As a further example, Mr. Steven G. Johnson's membership among the faculty at MIT doesn't mean that he can use a weak rationale as the basis of existence or non-existence (inculding vector (spatial)). --Firefly322 (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So you think we should delete vector (spatial) too?? Also, please refrain from taking shots at people and their real-life occupation or circumstances. It is unwarranted and irrelevant. And why do you insist on constantly using irrelevant and unnecessary honorifics like "eminent" and "respectable"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, this comes close to Number (physics): Physical quantity. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could say that physical quantity is, in a sense, a "physical number". But there is a difference: "physical quantity" (or just "quantity") is a well-known term in common use, seen for example in authoritative sources such as the SI brochures. On the other hand, a "physical vector" is something made up for this article, not a distinction commonly made in the real world. --Itub (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said of "spatial vector". See the latest talk on Vector (spatial) for more discussion of the difficulty of naming and scoping this topic. Note also that it is unclear whether mathematical concepts like continuous and real number are true of the physical universe in which a quantum/discrete nature is found at small scales. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the precise title of the article can be debated, but that's because vectors are called simply "vectors" and we need to disambiguate them in some way from other uses of the same word in biology, computer science, etc. However, that doesn't negate that "physical vectors" are not different from normal "spatial" vectors in any way. --Itub (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at Vector (spatial) indicates that vectors are not simple, alas. One point raised by Steven is the property of covariance which term is used with different meanings in physics and maths. See Covariance and contravariance of vectors for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say vectors were simple, just that they are "called simply" (that is, using just one word) vectors. But there's no point continuing this ping-pong debate. I'll leave it to the closing admin to evaluate the consensus. This will be my last comment here. --Itub (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Steven G Johnson rationale. Tparameter (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Colonel Warden's rationale above specifically that this is from the standpoint of physics/engineering. Although I see the other argument in favour of deletion and there is some overlap, it is significant enough to merit a fork.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia operates by consensus. There is no consensus for separate articles. I have followed the many discussions that have dominated the talk pages for the last few weeks, and, per WP:CFORK, I remain unconvinced that separate articles are necessary. - Neparis (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - To the closing admin: may I suggest that the article be userfied? - Neparis (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that userifying has been suggested at the talk page(s) in question, and above more than once. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Independent comments have independent weight! - Neparis (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both forks per WP:CFORK. -- Fropuff (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything about physical should have their own page, separate from mathematically, despite same character. JacquesNguyen (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  It has not been established that this is the case. Furthermore, it has not been established that a vector is, in fact, something physical. Could you please expand on your rationale? --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Jacques' point seems clear enough to me. But since you don't understand it, please could you expand on your first sentence. What has not been established? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks not-Jacques. It has not been established that this ("everything about physical should have their own page, separate from mathematically, despite same character") is the case. When someone uses the word "this" it generally refers to the most obvious thing. For example, if you said "I think we should delete the Main Page" and then I say "This is a bad idea" what do you think I'm talking about? --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 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 consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum Bob (singer)

Maximum Bob (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very tenuous claim to notability. Articles states the subject worked with two notable artists on their albums, but does not state in what capacity. I speedily deleted an earlier incarnation of this article a week or so prior to its recreation as an A7. Caknuck (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Where's the substance? Where's the main event? The article says pretty much nothing, and asserts that with the statement of Esentially, nothing is known about Maximum Bob. An earlier sentence also claims he may release some solo material. Yngvarr (c) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Changed info on his contribution to Deli Creeps, lead vocals. Not much is known about him as, like Buckethead, he uses a stage name to seperate his work from his private life. This, in itself, is not that important when talking about his notability as a singer. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to above as you noted, his stage and real name is not relevant to notability as a singer, but unlike the Buckethead article, the nominated article is pretty much empty. It basically says he may release a solo album, and has worked with Delicreeps and Buckethead. Beyond that, there's no information. If nothing other than this can be presented, it would simply be better to merge this text into the Delicreeps and Buckethead article. If you were to remove the Discography (which ultimately is not his, and should not be credited as such) and the infobox, you'd end up with an article of about two sentences. While length may not be a requirement, the previous concern that WP:MUSIC is not satisfied with this article is still valid. Yngvarr (c) 16:04, 29 February 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, article has been renamed to Cassie's second studio album. GlassCobra 10:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connecticut Fever

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

no sources, pure crystal ball violation Kww (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Clarification: No source for title, not enough information from its one source to get beyond a stub. Thus, it's a stub that can't justify existing under this name.Kww (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "No sources" is not true—almost all of the information is taken from an article in Billboard that is specifically about the album. Before I !vote, I'd like to see if anyone can add a little more coverage. Unlike most "forthcoming album" articles, this one isn't full of speculation and rumor (except for the title) and does have at least one piece of non-trivial coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Cassie or, at the very least, move to Cassie's second album (or similar). One article is slim coverage, but it's reliable and Hello Control has done a good job cleaning out much of the cruft. (Incidentally, if we can't find a source for it in this article Official Girl should probably go away.) This article was likely created with this title because of the earlier deletion of other articles that seem to have been out there (IIRC) at one point Untitled Cassie Album, Still Cassie, Cassie's Sophmore Album, etc. In any case, without a source for the title, it has to at least move. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I definitely agree re: the move. I put a cite req on the title and was going to give it a few days before moving it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It would seem that if Kww agrees the sourced info is solid, we can just merge this bad boy and all go home happy. (Incidentally, an earlier version was axed. A look at that Talk page leaves me with little hope we'll find a source for the title "Connecticut Fever".) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This album is being released on May 20, so right now, there's no real reason to have it. Everything on this page is on Cassie's page anyway. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really think that merge is an appropriate answer, here. After merging, a redirect is left in place from the old title to the new. In this case, the unsourced information is the title itself ... there should be no redirected from Connecticut Fever to anything at all.Kww (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There is dispute over the tracks every 5 seconds. Delete the page. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note - Page has been protected for 2 days to prevent IPs adding incorrect information per a protection request at RFP. Rudget. 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move to an untitled album. The Billboard article is a sufficient source for album notability and means that the article is not WP:CRYSTAL (nothing in the article is unverified speculation). —Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:56, 4 March 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 under [[WP:CSD|G11] criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MAIA Intelligence

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

This article is blatant SPAM Lancet (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree. It is also a wholly unreferenced article about a software business that makes absolutely no claim to notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company; cites no secondary resources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons - I would have G11'd it.--ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Spam and tagged as such for speedy deletion. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - pure spam, NN corporation with all those red links! Bearian (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• This article is not at all spam. Its from the secured resource, from a company into business intellignec, who has a mission to democratize Business Intelligence (BI) and make it available to masses. Business Intelligence (BI) was only meant for few expert users like analysts & top management in an organization. But with software like 1KEY BI, the business users at the operational level can make use of BI. Request the administrator to rethink on this.Therainsmail (talk) 08:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Therainsmail, If this were so you could have created an article about the democratization of BI, or better, added an entry about this subject to the existing Business intelligence article. What I think you won't get is the democratisation of free advertisement for your company on the Wikipedia. It would be a better start if you created a user page that allows others to talk to you. Cheers. Lancet (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Lancet75, have edited the article page, added references, & still want to add knowledge to the Wiki users. But while viewing other articles I found many others are also doing such Free Advertisement like SAS System, MicroStrategy to name a few. Although I donot want to get in that debate. Please guide me as to how improve the content & make it knwoledge rich.Therainsmail (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Therainsmail, please read this Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you think that other articles are spam, you are free to nominate them for deletion as I did with this one. In the end it's the editor's community and the administrators who decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancet75 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
        • We do not want to get into that argument. Why I referred other articles was, rationale behaviour. If the other articles are up and accepted to the moderator, why not this article. We have made the changes & still open to modify as per the policy. Your suggestions to the current article would be highly appreciated.Therainsmail (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
          • If the other articles are up and accepted it because of two possible reasons: (1)They are not spam or (2) They are spam but have until now escaped to the scrutiny of the editors and administrators. As for my suggestions, I have already formulated them above: If you interest is in the democratisation of BI, making BI "available to the masses" you should add an entry on the subject, and eventually a link, to the existing Business intelligence article. As for my view, MAIA Intelligence doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability and the articles content being the advertisement of MAIA Intelligence's products and services meets clearly Wikipedia's criteria for spam thus for speedy deletion. Cheers Lancet (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lily Pleasant

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

Article about a character someone made on the Sims 2. Belinrahs (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'd like to add some weight behind this opinion, but seriously, what else can I say? Yngvarr (c) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of useless, trivial information about someone's personal character video game. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Obvious delete. Nice test page by the author, but unfortunately the subject is inherently impossibly non-notable. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:04, 28 February 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 (for now) based on article improvements. No prejudice againsta a re-nom at a later date. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Lewis

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

Three sentence bio of the founder of Philosophy Now. No other assertions of notability, no refs. Failed WP:CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing beyond him founding a magazine, and that event is already listed in the magazine article. Yngvarr (c) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I've just expanded this article to include refs and extra evidence of subject's notability, ie (1) first to get a philosophy mag onto ordinary newsstands and (2) his role in introducing philosophy cafes into the UK. This article was only created yesterday and may well be a work in progress anyway, quite apart from my own contributions just now. I've therefore also added an underconstruction tag. (Can I do that?) Dungate (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I only just created this article; I'm still working on it. Ilpiu (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• suggest withdrawing this and reconsider at a later time. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 1 March 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. - Philippe | Talk 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smile 012

Smile 012 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company is not notable. Should have been deleted a while ago, and could have been speedied, but wanted to get community input. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:01, 28 February 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 as failing WP:N, WP:ORG specifically, and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knoxville Racquet Club

Knoxville Racquet Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this tennis/swimming club notable? Doesn't look like it to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:ORG for local orgs TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and WP:ORG. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:01, 28 February 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 Notability is usually demonstrated by the presence of multiple independent sources and/or inherent notability from their role or position. I'm not seeing any [[18]] of inherent notability for this individual and COS of a regional command does not seem particularly notable. We therefore go back to multiple independent sources. Since these are not present policy mandates deletion. The article can be undeleted at any time on presentation of the requisite sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Douglas Tom

Stephen Douglas Tom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject Awotter (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blatant copyvio, have tagged it as such for speedy delete. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note The article was already reviewed for speedy deletion and that was rejected, the material is from the US government and isn't subject to copyright, I just didn't think there was any notability.Awotter (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Interesting, I've nominated other military bios that were lifted as a copy paste from the same site before and they've been speedied without question as there's no license for the text. We'll see what happens with this one. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well apparently, it depends on who's reviewing as the tag was just removed again. Oh well TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • There is actually an historical precedent for the complete or partial incorporation of PD material published by the US government with the extensive (and legitimate) use of DANFS. Saying that, there is no compelling, independent assertion of notability for this person. SoLando (Talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, chief of staff is an important position but not particularly notable. Does not really satisfy WP:MILMOS#NOTE. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Chief of Staff of Pacific Command is a notable position. Recommend the article be rewritten so copyvio worries (and/or misconceptions) are addressed. I've added the WP:BLP banner, too. 23skidoo (talk) 15:28, 29 February 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 as redirect - Philippe | Talk 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beth El Synagogue

Beth El Synagogue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Beth El, if my Hebrew is correct means "House of God". A list of Synagogues which have been named as such is about as non-notable, unmaintabable and indiscriminate as "List of Churches called St Peters" or "List of mosques named for the prophet". Prod removed without reasoning. Doc^g 12:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If the synagogues are worth keeping in Wikipedia, then they should have their own articles, or be organised by geography etc. Organising them together because they happen to share a name makes little sense. Might as well have "List of Pizza houses called Tony's".--Doc^g 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect as indicated--Doc^g 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — dvdrw 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Each synagogue should have its own article if notable. Dreamspy (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would have voted keep if there were sources for this article. Unfortunately as none exist, I'll have to vote weak delete.Vice regent 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's essentially a list of towns that have a synagogue that happens to be called "Beth El Synagogue"... Southbury, Baltimore, Minneapolis, etc.... you could do a similar article about which towns have a "First Presbyterian Church", but I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. Mandsford (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is,[19] and it is all redlinks. dvdrw 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Incredible. I don't see any purpose for this type of article other than for a churchgoer to say, "Hey, they have an 'Immanuel Baptist Church' in _____town, just like we do!" Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. No reliable evidence of notability, claim of notability appears to be WP:OR.) Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC See comment below --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep pending improvement, conversion to dab page or redirect. I see nothing more fitting for a list than arrangement according to name, maybe that is just too obvious. I think this would make a fine dab page if anyone took the time to improve it rather than simply trying to delete any synagogue page that shows some sign of weakness. Dab pages, which is what this article is in my opinion or could be easily converted to, do not have the same requirements for references. If converted to dab conventions, perhaps this would be mostly red links at first along the lines of Temple Beth-El or other examples, but there is a subtlety between "synagogue" and "temple" that I think should be preserved. I'm not sure if the editors who have listed these establishments have taken this into account or not, or if they are truly interchangeable, but if no one is going to improve this article in the time of this afd then I think it should be redirected to Temple Beth-El. dvdrw 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with ability to Reinstate Beth El is like "Young Israel" or "Hebrew Institute" or "Shira Hadasha" it originally meant a specific type of synagogue, in this case a theology of Conservative Judiasm that was not the same as a "Jewish Center". This article did not address the topic at all. --Jayrav (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone created an article such as you suggest, if would be different entirely and would not qualify for a deletion as a repost. I'd undelete it myself if anyone tried to speedy it,--Doc^g 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Temple Beth-El. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge. The name is not Beth El - the name is Beth El Synagogue or Beth El Temple. A Beth El Temple is Reform, a Beth El Synagogue started as mixed seating orthodox, that become Conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrav (talk • contribs) 15:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - and expend, this is a great idea to list all the great houses of worship with this holy name, thanks--YY (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

* Strong Delete Anyone saying keep doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. If any of the synagogues named "Beth El Synagogue" are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, they should have their own articles at "Beth El Synagogue (City)". Then, the page "Beth El Synagogue" would serve as a disambiguation page for those articles. Wikipedia is not a place for lists of places of worship. I encourge everyone who wants to keep this page to write articles on all the notable Beth El Synagogues. Then we can make this page a disambiguation page. Dgf32 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

* Nomination for Speedy Deletion per CSD A3. Article has no meaningful content. It is a list of synagogues which may not be notable as none of them have articles on Wikipedia. This page could be recreated as a disambiguation page if it is needed to disambiguate between multiple listings of Beth El Synagogues, but as of now a disambiguation page is not needed here. Dgf32 (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - if the synagogues listed had individual articles, this could be a disambiguation page, however at the moment, all I could suggest is a redirect. Addhoc (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was going to make the page into a redirect page or a disambiguation page, but there are no articles on a "Beth El Synagogue" to redirect to or disambiguate to. That's why it has to be deleted. Dgf32 (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy - there's no real content. Mangoe (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I left a message on the article's talk page. If no one objects, I'm going to change the page to serve as a redirect to Temple Beth El, which is an existing disambiguation page. It can always be made into a disambiguation page for "Beth El Synagogue" in the future. That we can avoid deletion. Dgf32 (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Converted to a redirect. Dgf32 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Page now serves as a redirect to Temple Beth-El because there were no "Beth El Synagogue" articles to disambiguate to. Dgf32 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the newly added redirect which, as noted above, does disambiguate several similarly named synagogues that have existing articles. --MPerel 03:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we have any reliable sources for the comments made at this AfD by Jayrav and others tha a "Beth El Synagogue" is not simply a random name for a synagogue, but originally meant a specific type -- a mixed seating Orthodox synagogue? If so, and if we could change the article accordingly, this would change my view. What sources do we have for this claim? If this is sourced, then, (a) It would be worth a keep, (b) a merge or redirect to Temple Beth El would be inappropriate since the latter is an institution in Reform Judaism or the left (rather than the right) wing of Conservative Judaism, and (c) it might be worth mentioning in Conservadox Judaism as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, ah, at any rate it does appear the redirect to Tempel Beth El is inappropriate since as Shirahadasha says it appears all the Beth El Synagogues on the list belong to the Conservative movement and Temple Beth El is Reform. --MPerel 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentActually, Synagogue Naming Practices might be a good topic for an article. Did you know that the Talmud condemns those who name their synagogues Beth Am.... which is a popular synagogue name? Yudel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• NOTE: The term "Beth el" or "Beth-el" or "Bethel" is used by Reform and Conservative synagogues, (and sometimes Orthodox ones too, minus the word "Temple"), so that perhaps the Temple Beth-El page should istelf be renamed Synagogues named Beth-El that would be a legitimate disambiguation page for all such synagogues, and it be required that all articles about synagogues name their geographic locations in their titles. IZAK (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because as of now all it is, is a redirect page to Temple Beth-El, which in turn is a valid disambiguation page. IZAK (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the redirect page. Addhoc (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• As nominator, I am happy to see this kept as a redirect to a useful dab page, providing we remember that disambigs are for disambiging articles we have and not creating crufty lists by the back door. So keep it.--Doc^g 20:48, 3 March 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:OR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. This is essentially an unsourced, unverifiable biography with some claims possibly based on family stories or hearsay. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gwen Kaae

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

Despite the claim of being America's first stuntwoman, I am having difficulty finding sources for this article, and believe that if the information in the article cannot be derived from reliable, published sources, it should not be on Wikipedia. Google searches of ["Gwen Kaae"] gives 23 Wikipedia-mirror hits. Full first name married surname ["Gwendlyn Kaae"] gives zilch, as does short first name maiden surname ["Gwen Gillaspy"] [20], and full first name maiden surname ["Gwendlyn Gillaspy"] [21]. Google Scholar has got nothing either

Also, the article was written in very emotional terms, and the more I tried to clean it up, the more I realised that this woman may not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people), even if the information could be sourced. She appeared as a stunt woman in a single film at age 12 and had (to quote the earlier version of the article) "a typical Leave it to Beaver life" before passing away. Fine for the family's personal website or genealogy profile, but without sources, I don't think it makes the cut on Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 12:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete Unsourced as per nom. You would think someone who was the first "stunt girl" in Hollywood woudl have something written about her? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, smacks of a family legend. The first stuntwoman in Hollywood was Helen Gibson, who has reams written about her. The claim here, that she was the first stunt "girl", presumably meaning underage, is dubious. Plenty of movies had been made by 1938, and it's hard to believe there was no precedent, and the claim that a little person was the only other option also seems a bit dubious. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced biography per WP:BIO. The subject is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database, even though her claim to notability is based on being a stunt girl in a movie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dhartung, Metropolitan. Edward321 (talk) 01:56, 2 March 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. - Philippe | Talk 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Scare Factor

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

The article is about an out-of-print script, not a production of the play. A search is almost impossible due to same name syndrome, but I find no evidence of this script's notability. Travellingcari (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A Google search on the play title and author's name finds no independent reliable sources. There is no indication that this play has had any cultural or commercial impact that might suggest notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete article seems to admit it has never been produced. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 1 March 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 to delete. Default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tallulah Morton

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

tagged for notability since July 07, no real claim to notability, WP:BIO Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No clear claim to notability. Dreamspy (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Although her notability appears to pertain to her modelling credentials at an early age, nonetheless there appear to be sufficient references in mainstream independent Australian (and NZ) press to support retention. Article currently needs work and has an advertorial feel (and I may make some edits in this direction), but subject appears to be of sufficient substance. Murtoa (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits now made Murtoa (talk) 12:43, 5 March 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 to Bloody Disgusting. GlassCobra 10:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Disgusting

Mr. Disgusting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason being "Article is about a real person, who is advertising his website, which constitutes blatant advertising." Hang-on request placed and probably is worth discussion. This is a procedural nomination by the admin considering Speedy/Hang-on requests. --VS ^talk 06:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That reason is ridiculous. We'd have to go ahead and delete the articles for every internet celebrity or web journalist. I'll go ahead and add more biographical information, will that satisfy the burden? TheRegicider (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Look more closely TheRegicider - this is a procedural nomination because you placed a hang-on tag on the page and I have just come along as the admin and decided to give it a chance to improve. You can as you wish edit the article as you say and hopefully convince others including the person tagging it for deletion that it is not just an article that seeks to advertise a web-site. To do that however you will probably have to read carefully some of the guidelines on how to write articles that have been provided to you on your talk page.--VS ^talk 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Ok, awesome. Thanks TheRegicider (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Two of the article's sources (Gelf Magazine [though it claims to be 'looking over the overlooked', suggesting a lack of coverage of notable topics?] and Cinematical.com) look as though they could use articles of their own; they at least give the appearance of being established and perhaps notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 10:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect with Bloody-Disgusting.com. The website is notable, but Miska isn't really discussed in sources, even if he occasionally contributes a quote to an article in, say, the NYT. TheRegicider, please see WP:WAX. Other articles may or may not meet our standards. We are judging this one in particular. (Also, I agree that Gelf and Cinematical may meet WP:N. I think Cinematical has had some linkspam issues and Gelf came up last year in something, but I can't find it.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Mr. D.......ng (sorry, couldn't resist that, Dhartung) Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 28 February 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 AfD was cut short and the article deleted as a copy of this page at kennedy-center.org.

(Although it has no direct bearing on the deletion of this article, TAIKOPROJECT too was, after redirection to TaikoProject, deleted as a copyright violation.) Hoary (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Fujii

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

I'm not quite sure I see the notability here; the sourcing seems to be primary and the article of the group that she is a member of, TAIKOPROJECT, suffers from similar problems. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to TAIKOPROJECT (which maybe should be at a normal capitalisation like Taikiproject or TaikiProject per WP:MOSTM). GNews search for TaikoProject [22] shows non-trivial news coverage; search for the woman herself [23]shows mainly brief mentions in relation to her role with the project, and no sources actually about her. cab (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And since when was {{find}} modified to not show pay sources?!? cab (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or delete altogether - non-notable, not sure the project is notable either. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 28 February 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 to delete; default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Winter - Irish Progressive Rock Band

Winter - Irish Progressive Rock Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable band Mystery12312 (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- Winter are one of the very few progressive rock bands to emerge from Ireland and the album they released 'Across the Circles Edge' has become a cult favourite among progressive rock followers. It regularly appears in prog rock artist lists and on the likes of eBay and Amazon shops. Therefore they are worthy of a Wikipedia listing.(Styk901 (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm old enough to recall the band. :-) Bearian (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 10:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral but if kept, move to Winter (Irish band)(because there's already a Winter (band)) and cleanup (the table used for the band info is the one for websites, not bands) anyway. Despite very little to no information on the band's All Music Guide page, it seems that their debut record was issued on EMI. I can't find any sources not connected to the band or to purchase of their recordings, but if someone else can - especially reviews from notable sources - i'd lean towards keep. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 15:42, 28 February 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 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elijah Drenner

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

Does not appear to be notable, per WP:MOVIE. The films that this director has made have not been widely distributed, thus not satisfying the notability guidelines laid out. Gary King (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the SPIDER BABY DVD in which Drenner's documentary has been a large seller for Dark Sky Films, has been noted by Fangoria as one of the best retrospective documentaries ever made for a cult film,

See Paragraphs 7 and 8: http://www.fangoria.com/dvd_review.php?id=5236

and has been nomintaed for multiple genre DVD awards:

http://rondoaward.com/

Additionally, a film which Drenner appeared in, PLANETFALL, has been available for over one year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diabolik6 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nonnotable. The additional references given here are helpful but still don't put him over the threshold. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 10:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable.Vice regent 14:50, 28 February 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 faithless (^speak) 12:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Center Software

On Center Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was tagged for speedy delete as being an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7). Hang-on placed - this is a procedural nomination. --VS ^talk 09:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, likely speedy delete. Seems likely to be re-creation of deleted material. In any case, this is a tech business that contains no indicia of notability. The single weblink cited as a source goes to a blank page for me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Article was created as an original entry, not a re-creation of deleted materials. Article is currently in the process of being fact-checked before adding more notable information. The weblink was updated to direct to the correct page. Additional sources are also being checked and added. - User:Cooper56 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete per WP:CORP. Borderline not notable. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:57, 28 February 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LitMinds

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

A run-of-the-mill website. I do not see where the notability is with this one. Per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this opportunity to further discuss the issue. Your issue with the LitMinds entry seems to be around notability. Allow us to address that.

It can be difficult to judge an organization by simply looking at it’s web-site. And you are right that on a cursory glance, LitMinds web-site won’t appear to be notable. In fact, we don’t claim to have a sophisticated web-site with fancy features. LitMinds does claim to be a notable organization which is engaged in several notable activities. Among them – 1) Telling the stories of literary innovators who are doing unique, interesting, and pioneering work to promote reading and literature. We do this through our acclaimed Literary Innovators Interviews which can be found on our blog. www.litminds.org/blog/ 2) Work with schools and colleges to help young readers discover books and the art of conversation through social networking. 3) Perform the above activities without any commercial motivations (ala advertisements, subscriptions fees, affiliate kick-backs). In summary, we think LitMinds is a notable mission-driven organization with fairly unique goals and focus.

Next, let us address the issue of “coverage” i.e. who else thinks we are doing anything notable? Here is some press we have received from the American Booksellers Association, San Francisco Business Journal, Publisher’s Weekly, New York Review of Books, and San Jose State University http://news.bookweb.org/features/5520.html http://washington.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/08/20/story5.html?jst=s_cn_hl http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6449438.html http://nyrb.typepad.com/classics/2007/06/index.html http://sanjose.metblogs.com/archives/2007/07/litmindsorg_teams_with_sjsu.phtml

Also, here is some discussions of LitMinds in the blogosphere: http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2007/03/litminds_interv.html http://bookchase.blogspot.com/2007/03/litminds-interview.html http://caribousmom.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/4/16/2884137.html http://www.thebookbeat.com/backroom/index.php

Last, after reading Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, we have an observation we would like to share. The guidelines say “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” In our humble opinion, strict application of this guideline poses significant risk of turning Wikipedia into a site that only summarizes what the mass media is reporting on. Let’s take a couple of examples from our world – the world of literature. The mass media has been obsessing about stories of independent bookstores closing around the country. There has been a real lack of coverage in the mass media about stories where independent bookstores are surviving and thriving while chain stores in the same neighborhoods are retrenching. Similarly, the mass media continues to report about the apparent decline of reading in the American society, and continues to largely ignore the efforts of pioneers who are helping to create generations of new readers. LitMinds was started to correct this information imbalance. So, by definition we are talking about things that don’t get covered by others! Fortunately, Wikepdia notability guidelines also state – “However, there is still a lot of debate on notability, as for obvious reasons, not every person, business, or street can be considered notable, so on such topics, the line has to be further drawn.” We hope in addition to making a case for LitMinds notability, this conversation will also help re-assess the notability guidelines themselves.

- Praveen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmadan (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Blogs aren't really acceptable as sources; and of the five "press" sources listed above, the last two are message-board posts and also not acceptable as sources. The three remaining references establish the site as a new venture that may someday be notable under the WP guidelines, but I don't think it's there yet. Deor (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB website less than a year old and with no notability in particular. Alexa rank is around [5 million], even lower than my own personal site. WP is not a guide to every website that ever existed. Looks like there's some WP:SPAM/WP:COI issues in play here too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB for the sourcing issues IDed by Deor TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable and does have a WP:COI--Pmedema (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Booksmith, the brick-and-mortar store owned by the same people. I think the ABA Bookweb, Bizjournals, and PW discussions are sufficient sourcing to add to that article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 28 February 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 10:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mayurkhandi

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

Seems to be a hoax civilization, only 1 Google hit for this (being this article). Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 11:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable and unsourced.Vice regent 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Did various searchs for possible spelling errors, and split the name up and found hits for Mayur and Khandi separately but not together. Does not satisfy WP:V--Pmedema (talk) 16:29, 28 February 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love You More than Football

Love You More than Football (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Deletion Box was removed as more information had been supplied from trusted sources showing that the album was set for release SeveredSpirit (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That's not how it works. I'll let SeveredSpirit know. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep We have articles on other albums by Space. At the least this could redirect to their article. Catchpole (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Fully completed but unreleased (about half of the tracks have since appeared elsewhere), there are indeed reliable sources on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:20, 4 March 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Torch (album)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete 1 MTV article is nowhere near the substantial coverage required by WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, possibly keep if a source is found for the iTunes release. The information backed up by reliable sources in the article (especially the MTV article, even the 2003 release date is supported by an empty AMG article) is valid and should be retained. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:00, 4 March 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Observed Performance and Effects of Communism

Observed Performance and Effects of Communism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete The entire article is POV and hodge podge of different sources. The effects described here are actually specifically effects of some communist governments, not "effect of communism". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your objection seems irrelevant since the topic of the article is "observed performance" and so it is looking at results rather than theory. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/merge. The article seems to be part of a set starting from Criticisms of communism. The material might be rearranged but there's lots to say and so this subarticle structure seems reasonable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The article as written sucks. it has no focus, no direction, almost no ecyclopdedic purpose. Likely something with this title is an article to be written. This one is not it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/merge. To address your concerns:

1. Regarding the article being POV, it is all referenced. It is not POV. It deals with a controversial subject that some will find objectionable, and will not want to discuss. But it is not POV. It is all referenced. If in fact you do find small portions of the article are POV, you should edit them to remove the POV rather than suggesting a draconian measure like deletion.

2. Regarding it being a "hodge podge of different sources"... I don't know what you are criticizing here. Almost every article on Wikipedia is a "hodge podge of different sources." Please reference a specific Wikipedia guideline that has been violated here.

3. The article, as it is titled, refers to the observed effects of communism in different countries. As such, it has a clear encyclopedic purpose. Please reference the Wikipedia guideline which would indicate that this article does not have an "encyclopedic purpose." There are no other articles on Wikipedia that deal with the relationship between Communism and famine/genocide. If you want to improve it, feel free. Immediately demanding that it be deleted though, does not strike me as a reasonable response. The article is not as complete and comprehensive as it may end up being. A lot can be said about this subject. However, your criticisms do not seem to be directed at the page being too short. I can expand it to be more comprehensive if you like, or you could do it yourself. That is how Wikipedia works.

For example, here is a whole List of effects describing the effects of different things. These are clearly encyclopedic. Mrdarklight (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this putrid POV fork full of OR. Some of the sources could potentially contribute to central planning, but the pseudo-scientific title is highly misleading. Note that not all communist countries have had famines, so this is basically extrapolating from one notorious example. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/merge. This article has no OR. It has no POV. It is all referenced by reliable sources. Again, if you think it has POV, please correct the POV rather than immediately jumping to delete. It is definitely not the extrapolation of one notorious example, but an observation of several examples, as noted in the article (China, Soviet Union, Cambodia). It can be expanded to include North Korea if you like. Honestly, what's POV is to dedicate many pages to communism and then to ignore the elephant in the room - the history of famine and genocide in communist nations. It would be as if you wrote a comprehensive series of articles on Nazism and somehow ignored the Holocaust. This article is, in part, an attempt to cover this important part of history, which is severely lacking elsewhere in the discussion of communism. Mrdarklight (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Add Ethiopia. See Google scholar for thousands of sources on these multiple communist famines which killed millions. OR is not required to cover this subject in great detail. The article just needs work. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the content to remove two instances that could be interpreted as POV and/or OR. Mrdarklight (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about the North Korean famine, in order to make the page more comprehensive and complete. Mrdarklight (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just checked: The Wikipedia page on Nazism mentions the Holocaust six times on the first page. This is of course reasonable and proper, as the holocaust is an important part of Nazism. The main page on communism doesn't mention famine, genocide or even the word violence - not once. Mrdarklight (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the main page of Communism to rectify this oversight. Mrdarklight (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No matter how brilliant an essay, no matter how many sources thrown in to persuade us, it's still an essay. The other side of Communism was its guarantee of "full employment" for the citizens. If you complained enough, they even allowed you to go to a labor camp. Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes this an essay? How is this an essay, while any other page is not an essay? 63.169.2.31 (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's your central thesis, "One of the primary observed effects of a centrally planned economy is a general weakening of economic performance," followed by proof in the form of evidence that famines happened under a particular form of totalitarian government. Notwithstanding that famines have occurred in non-communist nations as well, the article is one person's synthesis of information to prove a point. I define an essay as something that proposes an idea and then illustrates it, subject to people agreeing or disagreeing. Most of the articles on here are not essays, but recitals of facts, with very little analysis. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't require any analysis, and I didn't provide any. There is no OR in this article. It is not subject to "one person agreeing or disagreeing." It is the recitation of facts provided by attributed sources. If you can find a Wikipedia policy or guideline that has been violated here, I encourage you to reference it. I'd be glad to make this article comply with all Wikipedia policies. In fact, I believe it already does. Mrdarklight (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Observed Performance and Effects of Capitalism --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is nothing but analysis. It attempts to analyse the performance and effects of what it calls "communism" (and later, "socialism"), using a selective set of facts and with no attempt to define its terms: what is "communism"? The current governments of Cyprus and Kerala are also communist by name, yet are puzzlingly omitted here.

All of the observations on performance are negative: no mention is made, for example, of superior literacy levels and healthcare observed in nominally communist states like Cuba, though referenced facts on this are trivially simple to find: see List of countries by infant mortality rate, List of countries by literacy rate, List of countries by unemployment rate.

Notably, under the subheading "Freedom and Democracy", it's correctly pointed out that all of the totalitarian states listed call themselves "democratic republics", though they are neither democratic nor republican. Yet, for some reason, their identification of themselves as "socialist" is taken at face value. This article could therefore be renamed to Observed Performance and Effects of Democracy or Observed Performance and Effects of Republicanism, and be of just as much value. It's a blatantly POV essay. Virago (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also found and prodded a very similar (orphan) POV essay by the same editor, Death Toll of Communism. It seems the article listed here is a second attempt at posting: the first attempt was redirected to Criticisms of communism a year ago. Virago (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, a pov fork extra-ordinarie. --Soman (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, can't find anything in here even worth merging with Criticisms of communism. Virago (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete While referenced, it reaches its own conclusions in a way that can only be described as a novel synthesis of ideas, and anything that is actually factual and referenced is redundant to other articles. There is nothing to merge, since there is nothing worth merging. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete ahistorical, POV throughout, whether of the WP authors or the referenced authors does not matter. Hmains (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Worthless POV pushing. john k (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. Claiming it has no POV is like claiming "scientific socialism" works. It looks and smells like a POV fork to me. Get rid if it -- as it violates one of the basic rules of WP, or merge it back into one of the primary articles on communism. 01:47, 5 March 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 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Blue Man Group CDs

List of Blue Man Group CDs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "article" is merely an organized list of albums by the Blue Man Group, along with their track listings. Wikipedia is not a list of such information, and it is therefore encyclopedic. A discography article may be appropriate, however because the group's discography is so small, it may not be necessary either. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This just just a discography, the same as given for any other band, I would argue keeping under WP:SIZE. Yngvarr (c) 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Rename to Blue Man Group discography. It also needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise it's pretty much a misnamed discography. Either that or merge it with Blue Man Group altogether Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Discography articles are pretty common. Rename per Doc Strange. Maxamegalon2000 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Blue Man Group discography. This might be a little too long to merge into the main Blue Man Group page, and discography pages are fairly common. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to Blue Man Group discography Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. But please, no spinoff article called "List of Blue Man Group Blu-Rays" Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Doc Strange. There are many discography articles for groups where the information is too much to include in the group's main article, why would this one be any different?--Rtphokie (talk) 15:46, 2 March 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 to delete; default to KEEP - Philippe | Talk 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)