Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Early closure, unsourced biography, non-notable professor. Person who article is about is apparently in contact with me. Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koh Siak Peng

Koh Siak Peng (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete secondary school chemistry instructor, apparently there are YouTube videos, google turns up nothing suggesting that he meets WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently nice guy, good teacher, but I agree with Pete that there is no notability here. --Crusio (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy DeleteNot Natable enough. Hellboy2hell (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• but what about FUTURE notability in the sense that he will be representing a nation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.99.208 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A3, probably coulda picked A1 too. No prejudice against potential future recreation. Shereth 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student lounge

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

Delete contested prod; WP:DICDEF and the definition in the article equally applies to 1000s of locales: cafes, restaurants, bowling alleys, sidewalks, and shopping malls all serve the same purpose... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:11, 10 June 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 Deleted, along with the band's main page. Nakon 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reach Every Dolla

Reach Every Dolla (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreleased, album. Fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero hits on Google. Possible hoax. Otherwise, entirely non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• speedy delete just like the band's article. --Damiens.rf 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Unfortunately there is no speedy category for albums, otherwise I would have so nominated it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL as unreleased album, unsourced. TN‑X-Man 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

F.2.D. Myspace

They have some tracks on limewire, but none on myspace. I understand ya think they a hoax, but they are unsigned and still gonna go major. They are also working with "The Mixtape Massacre". The website isn't started, but they are on unoffical mixtapes. HA NOT A HOAX! NICE TRY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MixtapeMassacre (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• MySpace is not a reliable source. 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. -- role^player 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable band and album/single/etc. Fails WP:MUSIC many ways. DMacks (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not for a speedy, they assert notability. Probably not a hoax, but not notable as per WP:MUSIC - or at least, not as near as I can tell,. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 10 June 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, nonnotable unpublished fanbook. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The mark tom and travis story

The mark tom and travis story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unpublished book. Fails both WP:BK and WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 20:09, 10 June 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 Gone, no release, no assertion of notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F.2.D.

F.2.D. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased band. A lot of crystal-balling. First single schedulled for 2009. Stay tunned. Damiens.rf 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing in the article that makes the band pass WP:MUSIC, and I can't find anything via Google that would pass WP:MUSIC. Article can be recreated in the future if the group becomes notable. Bláthnaid 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I completely agree with the rationales provided by the nom and Blathnaid. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Unremarkable band, so tagged ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 10 June 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.

Keep, AfD withdrawn. (Non-admin closure.)

Give Me That (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect of non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep needs to be referenced but it made it on the music charts[9][10][11]

Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep it is notable for being Webbies first single.--Yankees10 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Being the Webbies first single does not make it notable. Charting does. I'll update the article. Thanks, Gtstricky. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification

Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted on the grounds that is it wholly inappropriate. The creator of this article stated that: There is confusion in Ireland over whether this will be good for the country or otherwise, and an excess of information from many extreme points of view is adding to this. This article has been created in order to invite an impartial combination of sources into a brief summary to help the general public. This is the job of the Irish Referendum Commission not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is there to a factual articles on the Lisbon Treaty / Referendum / Ratification not help the general public make up their minds on which way to vote. Wikipedia in not a blog or a forum for discussion. Finally, the points in the article about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty are not unique to Ireland and will affect the whole of the EU if the treaty is ratified. Snappy56 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy56 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; Ireland's referendum is well covered in the Treaty of Lisbon article. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article is an essay on the pros and cons of the treaty, and is not an encyclopedic article in the conventional sense. It is better suited to a blog or similar, and is decidedly suspect in terms of the following Wikipedia principles: Soapbox-esque, Reads like a blog, Reads like a manual, guide or "how to" advice, Does not represent a global perspective, etc. Guliolopez (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed, it's also almost exclusively edited by anons who have made almost no other contributions, not grounds for deletion but a little bit suspicious, I wonder would wikiscanner reveal anything?! Snappy56 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland which covers it correctly. This seems to be a fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtstricky (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 June 2008
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nominator. This article falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland covers Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in an encyclopedic manner. Also, the article will be redundant after Thursday. Bláthnaid 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World civil war (concept)

World civil war (concept) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not confirmed for this article Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm...anyone want to chime in? (Five days after the article was listed and no takers...is it my breath?) :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A fascinating theory, but a google search turns up little that's relevant. Looks more like an essay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ditto the Tiger. I did the same search and didn't come up with much; the term doesn't exactly seem to be in common use. And the sources in the article aren't really sources, they're links to other Wikipedia articles. Townlake (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Dennisthe2. Spell4yr (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete with the WP:HEY criteria being that someone would have to verify and then properly cite the Oswald Spengler and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. references. Also please note the disambig page World civil war, whose existence is questionable already (only one bluelink, to this page; the other thing it "disambiguates" against is not a bluelink), would need to be deleted as well if this AfD results in delete. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Clarify: After reading SWik78's comments below, I think I should clarify that by "verify"ing the sources in question, I also meant verifying that the article is accurately echoing these views, rather than synthesizing new concepts from their work. If SWik is correct, the WP:HEY criteria I suggested are unsatisfiable. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Besides the fact that the claims are not verified through reliable sources, the concepts presented by the different "historians" in the article are not universally the same, meaning that under the same moniker of "World civil war", they describe substantially different concepts. Basically, the article is mostly the author's own synthesis of previously published material in order to present a common bond which is not immediately apparent and the connection that does exist between the different concepts is very loose, bordering on tangential. As such, the author's synthesis of this material is a violation of WP:OR. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Malloy

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

Non notable, was not an official recognized member of the band according to the official band or label website, never participated in an official recording, the article is poorly sourced; one source listed is an online fan site interview with the person in question Eatabullet (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ref added. He was in the band. (linked to WP page) He also had some top 20 hits on his own [14]. The article seems to be a copy viol right now but it can be saved if someone will spend some time on it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I think I got a good ref in there now. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link to answers.com because the only mention of him is in their copy of our Van Halen article. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I keep getting Rick Rolled. Every article on the Van Halen relationship is a WP mirror. Anyway... I can not find any sources that backup the Van Halen claim. He is notable on his own but the article should be rewritten with info on him and his career and the Van Halen info deleted. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but remove the copyvio. He's charted in the Billboard Hot 100, and he has a decent length AMG bio and he's recorded for RCA -- wait, this is the same Malloy, right? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per TenPoundHammer. 2 charted songs and 2 albums with RCA passes WP:MUSIC. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep since he's a notable individual and the VHND has reported extensively on him and it's a "trustable" fansite, if such a thing exists. And he has a myspace, so an official web presence proving he is a 'real' man. Someone removed the content about him I wrote on the VH page. I'm too busy, but someone put it back! (The Elfoid (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

• Keep per all the above ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dragon Quest VIII characters

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the character and plot sections of Dragon Quest VIII; it is therefore duplicative and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete These characters only appeared in one episode, and the article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Dragon Quest wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doubtful sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game and this list is an extension of that notable article. The characters are referenced in the game itself and in the guides that came out for the game. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game, but notability is not inherited. This list of characters should establish its own notability per WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE, but it currently doesn't and hasn't shown any sign of possible improvement for two years. Per WP:V, establishing notability is done through the usage of independent sources, not the game itself or guides published by the game's company (primary sources). Kariteh (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no claim of notability. not a how-to but bordering on being a game guide --T-rex 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Valkyrie Profile characters

List of Valkyrie Profile characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot and character sections of the Valkyrie Profile video games. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Valkyrie Profile wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete --SkyWalker (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki as most of it seems to be a plot summary(?). BTW, the wiki can be found here. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rupert Hoogewerf

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

Procedural listing for user:EBY3221, who was having trouble listing the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

*delete Has this just been recreated? This is listed right next to a closed AFD for the same article, where the result was Speedy Delete. If it has been recreated, then salting might be appropriate. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Scrub that - looks like AFD nomination was going a bit awry and I was a bit premature. (Insert humerous observation here). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Is notable - found these sources: [15], [16] &[17]. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I found the same sources but then realized that 2 were published in 2003 - before the 2006 Speedy Deletion. Reading those both, they seem like uncited articles about the firing of Hoogewarf from Forbes. The third one appears to be a blurb about the annual Hurun Report, of which Hoogewarf is the editor. Although the publication may meet notability for a separate article (haven't researched enough to be sure), would then recommend the editor be a subheading of that article and not the other way around. EBY3221 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Egads, I forgot to add my original objections: the article seems to be an autobiography or a vanity piece, it's uncited, and I could not find enough objective references to feed a Wikifying rewrite.EBY3221 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EBY3221 (talk • contribs)

[edit] St andrews economic forum

St andrews economic forum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable conference. No independent sources cited. Only one such conference held so far (last month). No assertion of notability shown. User name of original author indicates possible conflict of interest. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability, schools have forums all the time. Why is this one special? L0b0t (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non notable at this point. Maybe down the road. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Pargeter

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

This actress' only claims to fame are parts as extras, four episodes of a radio soap (as an infant) and an alleged part in The Subtle Knife - a part whose name doesn't even turn up in the plot summary. No IMDB entry. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. No verifiable roles in notable works. No verifiable awards. Etc. Appears (at best) to be WP:CRYSTAL. And at worst vanity/hoax. Guliolopez (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The main claim of notability is based on being the recipient of a "Bambi prize". Claim is for 2003 on Bambi prize article. And 2005 in this article. A quick search of the Bambi website however, for either year, shows no mention of an award going to a person of this name. Further reinforcing that it is either a hoax, or overstatement of the subject's industry experience and recognition. If this article did not already have an AfD open, I'd be pushing for a speedy delete. (Without prejudice to recreate in (say) 15 years. If and when the notability criteria are met.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of any media coverage is suspicious. The only 'source' I found was her CV, which indicates that she was only ever an extra, and so isn't notable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article claims she auditioned for Lucy Timmins in the BBC's Lark Rise to Candleford "and was accepted", but according to this [18] the part was played by Olivia Hallinan. It's not conclusive, because she may have played an uncredited bit part as a younger version of the character, but it doesn't bolster this article's negligible attempts at asserting notability. --Karenjc 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Olivia Hallinan played Laura Timmins. On the other hand IMDB doesn't list a Lucy Timmins in the cast. I'm guessing it was a non-speaking, uncredited role (i.e. an extra). DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowball time? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilfredo

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

Possibly non-notable entertainer. Google doesn't provide any proof of a claim to childhood stardom or current rising popularity. No assertion of published albums or references. 9Nak (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tout monitor

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

Original author using this article to promote his service/industry, even though he did remove the direct link to his website. No independent sources to establish notability, not able to verify. Exists primarily to promote. Speedied once and re-created; another editor inexplicably removed the speedy tag on the second try. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Make this cruft go away. L0b0t (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete at the moment article is more of a dictdef than spam but, I can't get to the one reference to verify. If its a notable term it should be covered in lots of 3rd party reliable sources and it isn't. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement for non-notable product/service. --Damiens.rf 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete zero references that indicate that the subject is reliable, and insufficient context is given. I'm almost surprised this wasn't speedied again the second time.CrazyChemGuy _{(talk) (Contribs)} 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete More like an advertisement than an article. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do any of you people know anything about the sports betting industry or this terminology? It's fairly well known, just hasn't been documented in a online encyclopedia to reference. It's a legitimate category and can reference numerous sites that are considered Tout Monitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm sure you'd be happy to educate us, if only we'd go to your web site. (He's the original author, folks.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you go to my site or not. It's simply a reference for this category terminology. I thought this was a place for information? So what is wrong with what I wrote? Rather then just telling me off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Because you used it for promotional purposes, which is specifically prohibited. You only listed your site and another site (apparently affiliated) as references. The purpose of the article seems pretty obvious. If you had included some other references from independent, reliable sources, this might not have happened. Wikipedia is constantly bombarded by those who seek to use it as a venue to promote themselves or their services, and numerous editors and administrators spend an extraordinary amount of time in an effort to keep that stuff out and keep Wikipedia true to its mission. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I already removed the external link to my site and added other references. The purpose of the article was to simply add to the gambling terminology section. Share the knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment let's lay off Bigguyceo for being the author folks he seems to be trying to improve the article. The problem seems to be more with reliable 3rd party referencing. He obviously isn't trying to sell his services when he removed the link quite willingly. I still think it isn't notable enough for its own article but, it may be appropriate to mention it in a different article on sports betting/gambling. It may also help if Bigguyceo can contribute to some other articles in a constructive manner for those that don't automatically assume good faith to have something to help them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chillay Productions

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

The only assertion of notability seems to be removal of two videos from YouTube. 9Nak (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete These kids need to be knee-deep in an ELA class studying spelling and grammar, rather than playing video games or monkeying about with the encyclopedia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable group Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable subject, no NPOV because author admires them and created page only for that reason (see rev) Shoombooly (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There are 96 Google hits here but they come either from the company itself, blog sites or youtub. Doesn't seem very notable at present. Artene50 (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 1600

Nokia 1600 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated twice; no consensus was reached the first time, and after almost two years, the article remains unreferenced and establishes no claim to notability. The second nomination was about 8 months ago; no improvement since then. This is just another cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide and Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, so this material really doesn't belong here. Mikeblas (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect Strong Delete This seems to illustrate a problem with the Wiki process. People will fight like apes to keep an article but then once the AfD closes they go on their merry way; never trying to make any of the improvements they swore were imminent and were all that was needed to make an article great. This is an encyclopedia not a product guide. L0b0t (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Vote changed to redirect per Thetrick. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect Redirect to list of Nokia products as is the case with several other models. Thetrick (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per the above if thelist already exists otherwise delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, not because I want this article so bad, but List of Nokia products lists them all with links to the product pages, which would mean that deleting them all results in a list without any context, other than numbers. I agree WP is not a product catalog, but that debate can go a long way, since every last combat tank, airplane, car, gameconsole and apple product (etc etc etc) is featured in its own article. Why shouldn't all (nokia) phones be? Or even all types of Coca Cola, or all types of Ferrari? Agreed, a lot of those phone articles need work, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. If the article was nominated twice and twice kept, that's a strong indication that there's some merit to it being kept. Sometimes you just have to wait for someone to eventually pick of the glove and expand this article. Otherwise we will have to AfD a lot more than just this cellphone. Shoombooly (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:WAX doesn't help much. I nominate articles as fast as I can, and I do wish I could delete all the cataloging articles about unreferenced, non-notable products. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I understand where you're coming from, i have the same with non-notable songs and albums that can't easily be gotten rid of. But looking at the previous 2 AfD's for this article, there was a good bunch of people that wanted this kept, why not just accept the results of 2 other tries (in which you were involved) and move on, surely there's plenty of other things that need cleaning up? Apparently the other 2 times it wasn't deleted because people saw merit to this article. As i've learnt here, a badly written article can sometimes stay, indefinitely, as you know Wikipedia has no deadline. This means it has forever to get improved, when its given the chance. Shoombooly (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • CommentSeeing a large number of article of a given sort which deserve deletion, but perhaps don't fit well as a group nomination, could make one feel a bit as Caligula did when he said [19] that he "wished all Rome had one neck." Edison (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. I did accept it. I accepted it, then waited several months and noticed no improvement in the article. I did that twice. Note that the first AfD didn't keep the article--it just didn't reach a consensus. The "no deadline" doctrine doesn't apply to articles that don't need to be here because of WP:NOT or WP:OR or WP:N, like this one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No references to show that it satisfies notability requirements. Simply being a product offered for sale by a large company in no way provides inherent notability. Wikipedia is not a surrogate of the vendor's webpage. If being offered for sale by a large company was sufficient notability to justify an article, then since notability is not temporary, every product ever offered for sale by a large company would be notable. I would not oppose a redirect to a list of Nokia products, although even such a list will sometimes have questionable notability. Imagine a list of every product ever sold by Sears Roebuck in the last 115 years. Edison (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not? Wikipedia tries to list every Roman Emperor that ever lived, every invention, every town (2 million or so), every creature...why not every product? I'm sure more people noted the 1600 than one of the hundreds of species of amoebe listed on WP. Also, what about this for example? It's a remote, big deal, yet has a fully fledged article. I'm willing to bet more people had a nokia 1600 than a apple remote. But that's not the point, is it, it went through AfD twice, was kept twice, nothing has changed, so why the need to delete, nothing has changed and there's no deadline? Why the tenacity? Shoombooly (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Nokia products. My initial instinct is to support Shoombooly, my WikiProject Orphanage partner-in-crime. However, my friend, I think that your arguments for keeping this article speak more towards the fact that there are a lot of other articles which deserve deletion (see Edison's Caligula quote, above). Doing a cursory Google search for this phone only reveals the specs for this phone, and not any other reason it's notable. The Apple remote is notable, in my opinion, simply because it can be used for so much, and is pretty unique as far as remotes go, in that it is a remote for a PC, which is not a common thing. But cell phones are common as mud these days, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique about this phone that is not already covered by the cellular phone article. If you can find something specifically unique about it, then I would switch to keep. Until then, I would merge all the specs into the Nokia product article. Sorry, pardner.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I must slap you Aervanath, with this link: PC Remotes. Not that unique, that Apple Remote (better design though). Anyway, i could argue the buttons are different (they are, quite unusable as well), or other things that are slightly different. Point is, i really believe that when people search for gadgets in google, they often end up checking WP. There's no real line when it comes to products. Look for example at BlackBerry#Phones with BlackBerry e-mail client. Are they all notable phones? Yet they all have an article. Randomly deleting the Nokia 1600 after it was already kept twice seems a weird thing to do. Just because it is a simple phone doesn't make it less noteworthy than say, a Nokia 3310. I would agree to delete, if there was a policy to do so. But given the list of nokia models had so many articles for so many models, and given that this article survived AfD twice, it seems against my Vulcan logic to delete it this time round. Shoombooly (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Consider me slapped. :) Alright, so I'm obviously wrong on the "PC remote is unique" argument. However, I think my other arguments are still valid. I think there is other stuff like this, so we should keep this one, too, is not a valid argument, and I would probably vote "merge and redirect" for the Blackberry client phones you linked to, as well. As for "it was already kept twice", see WP:Consensus#Consensus Can Change. Especially since, as Wikipedia matures, and our number of articles grows, arguments for inclusion have been undergoing much more rigorous scrutiny than before. I think the other "redirect" votes above are evidence that, for some of us at least, the previous consensus is no longer valid. Also, I would point out that the result of the first discussion was in fact no consensus, which defaults to keep. I would point you to WP:PRODUCT, as well. As for searching for gadgets on google, google WILL still give the redirect as a search result, and since I am urging that we keep all the Nokia 1600 info in the Nokia products article, it is not as if we are therefore preventing users from finding information about the phone.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply Well all that being said, the link to your main point of argument is broken! Of course consensus can change, but still, the consensus does not seem to be outright deletion. Also, i think the steady growth of WP isn't necessarily automatically maturing, since there are many new people who post rubbish articles. Again, why bother with this article at all, it's here, it's been here 2 years, not enough people took offense. Again, what's the point of listing all inhabited places in the world, most never ever noted by any of us, but not to include a phone millions of people know from experience. That does not compute for me. And also, WP:OSE is NOT, I repeat, NOT policy! I could just as well write an essay outlining why OSE is a completely valid argument. OSE is used every day in WP, as an argument to create all sorts of stuff. Most of which never gets deleted. Using WP:OSE is just as invalid in this argument as me claiming OSE is. Shoombooly (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Reply to reply to reply to comment I have fixed the link above. I should point out that I did not vote for "outright deletion", either. And I agree with you that OSE is not policy. However, I tend to agree with it, especially, as I said before, because I think that the other articles you are citing probably don't deserve to be independent articles, either. Just because something's not policy doesn't mean it's not right.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • RRRRRRReply But with all the crap there is to delete, this one isn't so necessary. And that's basically my point. Shoombooly (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • They'rrrrrrrrreeeeee grrrrrrreat! So you're voting "keep" on the basis that we should delete the other stuff before we delete this one? Or am I mis-interpreting you?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Final words on this one I'm voting keep because it is common practice on WP to have articles about consumer goods. Whether it be Big Mac's, Opel Astra, Gameboy Micro, Canon EOS 300, Twinkies, Palm Treo, Sandisk Sansa or whatever else is available. Mind you, I did not even need to check those pages, i just knew they would exist. Are they all revolutionary or notable? No. Perhaps the BigMac, but surely not the Sansa. The thing is, once something is common practice, what's the point of singling out this article and deleting it? Just to make an example? If you allow so many, why bother deleting a few? So yes, my point is that if we refuse to draw a clear line, we should allow the borderline cases as well. Not because the item is so notable, but because deleting a few sets a completely arbitrary precedent. Why delete this one but not that one? There's no strict rule on it. If an item was bought by millions of people, it is at least somehow notable, right? "Nokia 1600" on Google yielded more than 5 million hits (or 1 million depending on the method), surely that's notable? It's all a matter of definition. OSE doesn't help because of SO MUCH OSE. There's no end to what can be deleted under OSE rules, and therefor we should not even start. Other stuff does exist, and because we let it, and have no desire to have it cease existing, this may exist as well. As if the Whopper / Caramac is a notable product...still millions know it, and it gets an article. Same goes for this phone. Millions used it, so it gets an article. 1 million google hits can't be wrong. Just my 2 cents. Shoombooly (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Final refutation One million Google hits prove nothing if none of them give enough information to make an article with more than just bare specs. Also, the problem with allowing borderline cases is the old "slippery slope" argument. If we allow all the "borderline" cases, then that means that effectively they are all inside the border, which means even less notable articles are now borderline, which by your argument should be allowed, and thus it keeps going. At some point we have to start knocking back the borderline cases.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Consumer products such as cell phones are like books or movies: they become "notable" when people write about them (for example, reviews). There are published reviews of this cellphone (one is already linked from the article). There are even a couple of articles mentioning this phone on Google scholar; the first one seems very interesting but I can't access it. --Itub (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I15

I15 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rapper once played with Soulja. Damiens.rf 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Their 1st album has yet to be released, imminently non-notable. L0b0t (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Soulja Girl per precedent set with Arab (rapper), who was redirected to Yahhh!. Spell4yr (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Interstate 15, and put in a hatnote. 70.51.8.208 (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museum Mile, London

Museum Mile, London (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been in existence since Dec 2006, without any statement of notability, or expansion. The term appears to have been applied only by the London Borough of Camden, and in fact appears to conflict with other uses to apply the term to museums around South Kensington. If this article were to be retained, I should like to see some evidence that it's used beyond LBC. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — promotional or not, this page provides a worthwhile list of important museums in this area of central London. The term is used by "Visit London", the official London tourist board website, and is thus used by others as well as the London Borough of Camden. I have added a reference. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment That link is to the opening page of 'Visit London' and doesn't appear to contain any reference to 'Museum Mile'. I can't find it on 'attractions/culture/' either - and a site search returns no results.

Museums in London are all listed in {{London museums and galleries}}. While the contents are notable, this article just seems an arbitrary list - and includes the Theatre Museum which closed and transferred its collection to the V&A. Kbthompson (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment — Try here. I think you clicked the wrong link! Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Kbthompson (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art was a research library (not open to the public), has now closed and its collection is being incorporated in the British Museum. The Petrie museum is also closing, to be incorporated into the UCL Institute for Cultural Heritage. The Huntarian Museum is in Glasgow - its the other brother that founded this collection, and there's no specific article. The Brunei Gallery is a redirect to a University college. Last time I was there, the Royal Opera House didn't have a gallery, or exhibition - although the building has intrinsic interest. Kbthompson (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This list might be appropriate at Wikitravel but it has no place here. Thetrick (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as the one who originally suggested that this page needed drastic attention at WikiProject London. This is a failed tourist board initiative that is not signposted in any form in the area, is not labelled as such at the museums concerned, and the only circumstances in which I can see someone using the term "Museum Mile" in the context of London would be to refer to Exhibition Road. – iridescent 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment — I can't see a reference to the failure mentioned above. Is this just a personal opinion? If not, please provide documentary evidence. The London tourist board information seems to be up-to-date on their website. The term has been used for South Kensington museums too and I have added a note and reference for this (from Fodors) in the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Collins

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

Declined speedy. Article created by single-use account. Only references are to subject's website and publisher's website. Notability not proven. Thetrick (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advertorial Infotainment

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

Advertisement disguised as an article about a non-notable defunct local radio show Dravecky (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable local radio show with some advertising thrown in. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment And, for the record, I had already deleted the link to Cafepress that the author has so throughfully included for people who might want to make a purchase. - Dravecky (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable self-promotion. L0b0t (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable college radio show. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narayanalayam

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

Non notable organization. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanmayananda Saraswathi

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

Non notable. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Only 1 result for google search that is wikipedia itself.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karl-Heinz Blomann

Karl-Heinz Blomann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Article is unreferenced advert created by single-use account Special:Contributions/KarlBlomann almost certainly in violation of WP:COI. Delete Thetrick (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Subject has an entry [21] on the German Wikipedia. This article seems to be a clunky translation of that page. So far I have been unable to turn up much in the way of sourcing in English other than directories that confirm: yes he does exist, he played the saxophone and mixed some tracks on some albums in the 1980s, and he co-founded the label that released those albums. Without more English language sources (that pass muster with RS), I think the German Wiki is the place for this article to stay. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, mainly, I admit, because the SPA accidentally removed the clean-up and CoI templates from the article when they removed the prod (never a good sign). But also because of WP:N and WP:RS issues, as L0b0t points out. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triat (World of Darkness)

Triat (World of Darkness) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional gods used in a role-playing game. No independent sources seem to be turned up by a search on "triat world darkness" on Google or Google News (which, of course) doesn't cover everything. This is a non-notable part of a significantly notable game (which I'm *not* disputing). If there are any significant independent sources located I will glady withdraw my nomination. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Werewolf: The Apocalypse- While I agree with the nom that this certainly does not have enough real-world notability on its own, it did play a major part in the plot and game mechanics. It definitly needs re-written from an out of universe perspective however. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I wouldn't be opposed to such a merger. Anyone who knows the importance of these fictional elements to the game is welcome to do such a merge. It should be noted that Werewolf: The Apocalypse is already bloated with lots of in-universe writing, and this article should be massively trimmed being doing any sort of merge there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per years of precedent regarding all things fannish. The Triat exists in Werewolf and (under different names) in Mage and is one of the major unifying points of the old World of Darkness universe. Considering WoD is one of the most popular gaming franchises in existence, and considering we have every damn Pokemon ever organized into several Pokedexen, I think this is a definite keep. Haikupoet (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm not arguing that the WoD isn't notable, I'm arguing that this part of it isn't, or at the very least the article as written does absolutely nothing to demonstrate this notability. As I stated above, my Google searches (which don't hit everything of course) didn't seem to turn up any independent resources. I fully expected this argument to be made, i.e. something like "WoD games are notable, hence every small part of it is notable", but I'm waiting for the evidence that I was unable to locate. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because the alternative would be to merge contents into several articles that are already quite long, including at least Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Mage: The Ascension. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They are quite long because they're already full on lots of in-universe material that should likely be trimmed down. What in this article, besides the first sentence, is non in-universe material that puts this into context? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt

Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A one-shot marketing promotion, with no evidence of lasting notability Ecoleetage (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete ATTENTION all marketing majors, ad-men, public relations firms, et al. For the love of Pete please stop putting your work product into the encyclopedia. You lot will be first against the wall when the revolution comes anyway (just ask the Golgafrincham Ark B passengers and crew.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteWeek Delete - It just doesn't seem to be WP:NOTABLE. I couldn't find anything besides the manufacturers website which refers to the bottle hunt. Nk.sheridan   Talk 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- Could possibly have some source for WP:V per Jkatzen's comments. Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not surprised people may not find it not notable, but the reason I added it here, is that it was an early-Internet-days meme, and there is sorely little available talking about some of the activities of the period. The year-long promotion was very well known among the few web-savvy individuals back in 1996-1997, but because it (admittedly) was only a marketing promotion, little remains of it. The promotion, though, introduced thousands of people to internet search engines when they were still a novelty. According to a book by author Daniel S. Janal (from Google Book Search), "Sunny Delight offered college-bound students an Internet scavenger hunt and a chance to win a $10000 scholarship. This ploy received nationwide attention . . . ." Also see an excerpt from another book discussing it. Alas, I'll probably be outvoted by people trying to trim down Wikipedia's listings, but I'd like to see the article stay. As a side note, if you search Google for sunny d "bottle hunt", there are some passing references to it on a number of sites. Jkatzen (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- re: the RFD, this wasn't a one-shot contest. It was repeated three times over an extended period. Jkatzen (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Provisional Neutral; if Jkatzen can add some references to document the event and its historical notability, then I have no problem with Keeping. The first, or an early, promotion of this kind is certainly a good claim to notability, and coverage of the event would cement that, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It may get a passing mention now and again but the criteria for notability is that multiple sources should address the subject in detail. --neon white talk 01:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recycling in schools

Recycling in schools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an original essay, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete OR essay. L0b0t (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is an original essay. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - currently an essay, but a legit article could be written on this topic --T-rex 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research written as essay, plus copyright violation. The entire Go Green section has been copied verbatim from here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An OR personal essay and possibly copyvio Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk to Me (NYC)

Talk to Me (NYC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article falls into WP:NOT#NEWS category. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Keep Notoriety and notability are not the same thing, while this couple has had trivial mention in student newspapers, blogs, and tabloids (the only sources listed in the article other than their own website.) that is not enough coverage to warrant an entry in the encyclopedia. Here in NYC we talk to each other every day, no help from college drop-outs with cardstock signs required. L0b0t (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and L0b0t. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no claim of notability. Sitting around in lawn chairs is not notable. --T-rex 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Darn, I wanted to go outside and sit a while, then write a Wikipedia page about myself. You're telling me that wouldn't be notable? :-( Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I see a good amount of RS coverage and last time I checked, the New York POst and Times were not "student newspapers, blogs". WP:IDONTLIKEIT was not a valid delete reason last time I noticed. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, but they are tabloids (technically NYT is not a tabloid but nobody has bothered to tell that to Sulzberger.) The sources at the link you provide for the most part just repeat a newswire release. The only sources listed in the article itself are to student papers, blogs, and tabloids. Again, notoriety and notability are not the same thing and WP:I'VEHEARDOFTHIS and WP:ILIKEIT are not reasons for inclusion. L0b0t (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment' The Seattle Times and San Francisco Chronicle both seem to be independent stories. Last time I checked any twp of the three big ones: NY Times, Seattle Times, SF Chron, NY Daily News.... would meet WP:N. I might have a go at re-writing it if I have a moment this afternoon. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability, even with newspaper articles. I've been the subject of newspaper articles but don't plan on writing a page about myself. Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've just re-written the article with a number of sources, none of which "repeat a newswire release". It has RS coverage and I suggest future commenters !vote on the current state, not the past !votes which related to a different article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well the rewrite, quite frankly, looks great. Would this be akin to a performance art piece? Do we have subject-specific inclusion criteria for events like this? Despite the mentions in the newspaper I'm just not convinced that this was a big enough "happening" or project to warrant inclusion. Every city has street crazies bohemian free-thinkers that hold up signs and talk to strangers. Tallahassee had King Love, New Orleans has that guy at Shell Plaza with the sandwich-board deploring the persecution of our "Psychic Prisoners", Brooklyn has the guy on the C train that's quite keen on Jesus. Talk to Me was a quirky human interest story but nothing more; I just don't think it merits an article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • you forgot Provincetown's Lobster Guy ;) Thanks for the comments on the re-write. I don't know if we have subject-specific criteria. I try not to go along the lines of "well all x are (not) notable" (not saying that you are doing this) so I'm not sure what precedent there may be. It is human interest but the fact that interest lasted for ~ three years is a good sign that it had some substance. I tried to think of a possible larger article of which this could form part, but I can't think of anything. I will think more on it. In the mean time, this has time to run and we can think :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • After giving the matter some consideration I'm going to have change my vote to a keep (vote changed above). The rewrite looks good, we have no specific reason to exclude it, and we have things like The Gates and Naked Cowboy. Although, King Love[22] should have his own page too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Rewrite doesn't look much different, and still not remotely notable. This is akin to having the article President Bush chocked on a Pretzel, notability is different then "it got mentioned in a newspaper" --T-rex 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tek-Tips

Tek-Tips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability does not appear to be confirmed in this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Spammy rubbish, reads like a press release or promotional brochure. L0b0t (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. More than a million members and all working on voluntary unpaid contributions. Isn't that of interest?--GwydionM (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solid Runner

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

Obscure, non-notable video game. Next to nothing for Google hits [23], no reliable sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V.  RGTraynor  11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It is not a notable video game. We simply cannot have a Wikipedia articles on every video games. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is supposed to be about learning new things (even about stuff that is completely unfamiliar to an English-speaking audience). If you go to Google Japan instead of the standard Google, you can find more information about the game. I often find that there's more information about Japanese video games on Google Japan than there is on the "regular Google." GVnayR (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - There is strong evidence reliable print sources exist for every super famicom game released. ~I cannot read Japanese, so it will be hard to search for myself, but I do know this trend. User:Krator (t c) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- I am the creator of this page. While this game may not be notable, neither are pages on many of the games listed on here. We don't try to delete those either. mattiator (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, yes, oftentimes we do when we find that the articles lack reliable sources and the subjects lack notability.  RGTraynor  21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If we go by Google Japan, then only 1680 hits are yielded for "ソリッドランナー" (the title of the game). Of these, the majority (I dare say 1650+) are from blog, fan-, or commercial (shops) sites that easily fail WP:RS. Of the remaining potential sites, they are little more than profile pages. I failed to find sites that have information on development or reception. Unless reliable print sources are brought up, I fear looking for online sources is a dead end to keep this article. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kuberulu

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

Contested prod. Non-notable future film, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Host

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

• Seemingly non-notable group. tomasz. 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - If you make an AfD for a band you may want to add their albums to the nomination.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Usually i just prod them as unnecessary-album-by-deleted-artist if the AfD !votes to delete. Same result either way really. tomasz. 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Shadow Host is a non-notable band. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Shadow Host is a notable band, because:

-It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable:
Metal-archives.com
Metaluniverse.net
Metrolyrics.com
Mastersland.com
and others.
-Has released two or more albums on a major label:
Twilight Legend
Curse Of The Angeleye
both on CD-Maximum, Russian major label.
-Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable:
Andrey Ischenko played in Catharsis.
-Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city:
It is a first and a most commonly mentioned band, playing Russian power metal.Ironguardian (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clearhealth

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "notability". Article about a piece of open source software in use in health organisations. Article does still read a bit like an advert. role^player 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading the notability guidelines it seems that certainly "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." that threshold is established. A google search shows substantive coverage from ZDNet, OsNews, Slashdot, and many more as well as consistent coverage in the Open Source Healthcare site of record site LinuxMedNews.com . Furthermore many resources covering the topic in the medical field are not available online such as the leading magazine publications and things like VistA Healthcare News which this month features ClearHealth.

Secondly "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources", it seems like any reasonable effort conducted reveal the results mentioned above which are clearly substantive and independent and meet the basic notability guideline. This article was also in response to an article request.

Finally the guideline of "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established" it seems that even if you feel notability is not now established there is a strong probability it can be.

How is this article not notable in the context of this one [24] ? Both are the largest open source systems for powering healthcare settings, VistA is for in-patient, ClearHealth is for outpatient. ClearHealth ranks higher on sourceforge and freshmeat than the VistA system? It powers the largest open source healthcare outpatient system in the country, Primary Care Coalition, as referenced in the article and in this months VistA Healthcare News. How can something be an advertisement for an open source project which is free in dollar terms and free under the GPL software license?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.248 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs a lot of work to assert notability, but it's there. A rewrite, including some numbers, can make it wothy keeping. 9Nak (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Springs Public School

Silver Springs Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

relatively unknown elementary school in Toronto. The article is just one sentence long. Yettipolitician123 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete School hasn't been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is not a notable elementary school. No sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --T-rex 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Since when were schools not notable? This is a real school (I did a quick google search and added two refs to verify this, and the GPS coordinates given). No reason to delete something just because its a stub! CrazyChemGuy _{(talk) (Contribs)} 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Nobody has claimed that the school is not real --T-rex 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Toronto District School Board, per precedent and WP:SCHOOLS. Existence!=notability _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Merge and redirect to List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario (the appropriate locality article) A viable verifiable encyclopaedic article is not currently possible, due to the lack of reliable sourcing; without this, the stub is merely a directory entry that fails WP:N. I'm not sure this needs an AfD though; common practice is just to merge and redirect to the locality article. EJF (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Or merge to Toronto District School Board as also suggested... either suits me. EJF (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario per usual practice. This could have just been done without coming here. Toronto District School Board isn't such a good merge since it doesn't detail any schools. TerriersFan (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Webbook

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the references provided verify that the term is used, not what it means exactly, a neologism that is for wikitionary not wikipedia. Move it across? SGGH ^speak! 10:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a protologism, e-book and netbook are more widely used.--Michael White^T·C 11:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This type of articles shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. Maybe it could be moved to wikitionary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blitz Tech

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

Non-notable, no independent sources, no relevant Google or Google News hits except their own website. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable corporate division. Do not merge, as the information is already covered in Blitz Games Studios.--Michael White^T·C 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Intercontinental 2008

Miss Intercontinental 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Few non-wiki and non-pageant fan site ghits. Almost no third party news sources can be found on Google. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss World Famous Beauties 2007

Miss World Famous Beauties 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

"... is a fictif annual beauty contest". I think that says it all. No ghits whatsoever outside Wikipedia. Contested prod. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable, probably hoax. Huon (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. Fails WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mysterious Universe

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

I was about to try to clean up this page, but I am not sure that this article satisfies WP:WEB or WP:N. Specifically, it fails to be notable as there are not multiple, independent mentions of the subject in reliable sources. All the references currently in the article are to web forums, podcasts, or webpages except for two press releases (from Wizzard and SubscribeCast) which are not independent of the site itself as they indicate a business relationship. The only source that might qualify is the blog positing from news.com.au, but since even this would only make one mention, it fails the "multiple" aspect of WP:N. Therefore I suggest it be deleted. DestroHolmes (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Tough call, this one. Article currently lacks reliable sources, the only source that could be useful is number 1, MSN Money, which is broken. No hits on google news. --neon white talk 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some important history on this page, but maybe that's not a good reason to keep the page on Wikipedia. I have copied the article to an offline file in case the show re-emerges and stirs more controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.30.208 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FUNLIB

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

Article was originally proposed for deletion as it did not cite any sources per WP:N and WP:V, and that searching didn't reveal any sources. Since then, the article has been blanked then stubified by the author but no sources have bee added. It's been about a month since the prod, so I'm bringing it here. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for want of sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. WillOakland (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chili cheese burrito

Chili cheese burrito (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an action to get Chili Cheese Burritos back to Taco Bell [25], a joke about a comedian that it is Mexican slang for penis, and a 'reverse engineered' recipe [26]. This leans towards nonsense and advertisement, and is in any case unnotable. I prodded it yesterday giving the same reason, but as the creator contested (see talk page of the user and the article), the prod was removed, so here I am. Cheers, Face 07:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia is not one of those things you stand on to shout your opinion at passers-by. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of notability, insufficient sources for verifiability, inappropriate subject for an article. Huon (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep Too much POV, but it does look like there is a certain amount of notability to warrant an article. The www.Chilicheese.org page lists news coverage such as Philidelphia Weekly, and on a nationally syndicated radio show [27] (although I have been unable to listen to that Mindows Media file). StephenBuxton (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Pure OR rubbish. L0b0t (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do a Google search, you'll find quite some forum/blog posts about it, and as Stephen showed, an RS even mentioned it. The article might be rubbish yes, but it's not OR. Cheers, Face 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N. Huon is right. It is an inappropriate subject for an article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Aside from the POV problem, I think I see a WP:COATRACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete fails just about everything, CB ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic weaponry in popular culture

Sonic weaponry in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be just a trivial dumping ground for anything related to Sonic Weaponry. Relevant content should be in the sonic weaponry article only, not in this subpage of clutter. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete article is just a trivia list. An attempt could be made to write an encyclopedic article on the subject and its real world impact but, this isn't it and probably isn't even the skeleton of it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 09:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I'd be surprised if there weren't some mention in some sci-fi magazine or film book, given gadgets like Dr Who's sonic screwdriver. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate list of very loosely associated bits of information. Plus, they forgot Earth vs. the Flying Saucers and Target Earth. Deor (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Crufty cesspit, they also forgot Banshee one of the early X-Men. L0b0t (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is a trivia list. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - While I think Casliber may have been on to something regarding Doctor Who's sonic screwdriver, but I'm not sure there's enough real world info out there to really warrant this list. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I guess almost every sci-fi movie or television series has sonic weapons, which would make this list indiscriminate (WP:NOT#IINFO). I wouldn't mind seeing a nice sourced paragraph or two about this topic at Sonic weaponry, but this list is just a bad idea. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list is. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Merg to Sonic weaponry and could also have some references. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful with Sonic Weaponry. And make sure Hawkwind's Sonic Attack gets a mention too. --Karenjc
  • Also, Noise Marines. L0b0t (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a good place to bring the material together.If sssentially every game and what not has it, then frst,it shows that this feature is notable, and ,second, it makes the potential length too long for a merge. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Sonic Weaponry. there're Google Books refs, topic is popular within the society and Wikipedia needs to cover this popularity. I agree that rewriting as some sourced paragraph could be nice, but content must be kept now for that to happen later. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Seaward

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

Abysmally fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Much of it, in fact, reads like WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Funny entry, but NN act. Associated redirects should be deleted as well, and a few associated edits reverted Thetrick (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and bounce out of the castle. A couple links are legit -- the Guardian article mentions Seaward by name -- but not notable enough outside of his backyard to be notable. Spell4yr (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• No delete Will add some more references (there are many) for verifiability and to prove notability. Please note this is my first article. What does "NN act" mean? Sprintakid (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment NN is wikipedia shorthand for 'Not-notable' see Wikipedia:Notability - I'm neutral on this for now. Article certainly isn't a Hoax - ref's to Guardian articles check out and he seems to have got other bits and pieces of news coverage[28] but I'm not sure if its enough to warrant an article -Hunting dog (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment "Abysmally fails WP:ENTERTAINER" - I disagree (certainly with the word 'abysmally' - isn't that a little too emotive?) as a person should have made contributions (to the arts in this case) that are "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." His contribution is unique, interesting and definitely unusual. I agree he fails on the other two criteria on WP:ENTERTAINER, but under the same heading it says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." i.e. not necessarily all.(Sprintakid talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Just delete it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schools 4 Schools

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

Was nominated for speedy deletion and contested. I thought it claimed notability but can find no reliable sources to back up that claim. Selket ^Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell, it's still a Speedy candidate since it hasn't bothered to even assert notability. Either way, delete. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete no assertion of notability and advertising. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete should have been speedied per original nomination ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Lockhart

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

Has published a handful of short stories but has apparently never published a book. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BK. Google throws up a lot of people with this name, but none of the notable ones appears to be this one. Possible WP:AUTO and WP:COI, given the username of this WP:single-purpose account. Qworty (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the page, and someone better associated with this issue needs to explain WP:COI and WP:BOOK to Mr. Lockhart. I'm assuming good faith here, since he hasn't been a nuisance. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per the non-notable/non-verifiable bit - welcome user and point them in the right direction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Christopher Lockhart is a non-notable science-fiction short story writer. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nu Image

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

Was nominated for CSD G11 by Realkyhick, I thought it had too many editors for that, but it might not be notable. Selket ^Talk 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not CSDable, but still worthy of deletion. All self-reference and redlinked names. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously, I prefer a speedy, but I'll settle for plain ol' delete. Not notable, self-referenced. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It's blatant advertising. Maybe notable/maybe not but, still advertising. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Satisfies WP:COMPANY. [29] [30] [31]. Not to mention they have produced an Oscar-nominated film (The Black Dahlia). The blatant advertising can be removed by reverting to the pre-09 June version. --DStoykov (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Blue Beam

Project Blue Beam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article lacks any sources that meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard. Valhawk (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, badly sourced conspiracy theory, also major parts are a copyvio from here. Huon (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is a stupid conspiracy theory. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Movies Made in Shreveport

List of Movies Made in Shreveport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft; no sources, almost impossible to independently verify. An indiscriminate, unreliable list. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, indiscriminate, unverified list. JIP | Talk 05:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - this is fraggable on three separate levels: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:LIST. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons given by JIP and Bullzeye. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. also note that the majority of films listed have a release date in the future --T-rex 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not IMDB Shoombooly (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence_Kaptain

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

Largely unverifiable, non-notable autobiography. Romanempire (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This quick search shows plenty of sources that show notability, and that the article is verifiable. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a standard for concert musicians? They are much more likely to get press than the typical band/band member, but that doesn't mean every single soloist is notable (even if this one did play with Yo-Yo Ma). Thetrick (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Most professional orchestra musicians can say that they have played with Yo Yo Ma in one way or another. That doesn't in itself establish notability. It should also be noted that the non-fiction bibliography references have nothing to do with the content of the article. The article in itself reads as if it was lifted straight from a concert program, and is clearly on Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. It should be deleted.willietanner (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This page is clearly an autobiography; it's sole maintainer is User:LKaptain. Romanempire (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the article is dubious under WP:COI but nonetheless there might be enough notability for it to be kept under WP:MUSIC. However, that standard seems more geared towards bands than concert musicians. Can this nom be relisted under music-related discussions? --Thetrick (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Romanempire, you meant "its", not "it's". M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant self-promotion. L0b0t (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant autobiographical, non-npov self promotion Shoombooly (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin DuPriest

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

No references, individual does not seem notable enough. Article was severely vandalized when I found it. I repaired vandalism and disambiguated a link. He sounds like a cool guy and all, but I don't see need to keep this article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up ... guess who originally wrote this article about Kevin DuPriest? That's right, a user named... User:Kdupriest. Hmmm. CosineKitty (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced and blatent WP:COI. Thetrick (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Developing a Microsoft SharePoint Web Portal is not notable --T-rex 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or shall we give all WP admins their own articles as well? Gotta draw the line somewhere. Shoombooly (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amie Roosevelt

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

I can't find any significant coverage to indicate that she is notable as a musician. --Michael White^T·C 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources. Has notable relatives, but notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Few GHits is generally sufficient to declare non-notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The only notability is her familily relations, only royalty gets notability for that (ridiculous as that may be) Shoombooly (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no significant coverage (even only mentioned in passing in an article on the accomplishments of Roosevelts in the present day). Mention in Roosevelt family is sufficient but could possibly be beefed up from sources to justify a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Yonan

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

IMHO this conflicts with the guidelines in WP:Autobiography, and it is written like an ad. See rev history and name of first author. But since it asserts notability, consensus must be reached. Shoombooly (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's written like an ad, indeed. I suspect it's a copy-and-paste from somewhere else. It is somewhat notable, though, so maybe with some cleaning up and referencing it would be worth keeping. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Notablity asserted but not proven. One new reference shows existence but not notability. Thetrick (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The reviews in reliable sources (embedded in the article rather than listed under the references heading) such as Tagesspiegel Berlin are probably enough to demonstrate notability, but since the search function at http://www.tagesspiegel.de/suche/ only covers articles since 1996, I can't verify the 1988 review of his performance. I found two references to him at the Google News archive and none at various Chicago-area news sites such as Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times or PioneerLocal.com. I would expect to see more coverage of a professional concert violinist, but there may be a good reason for the relatively small number of references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not yet notable. If he's as good as he says he is, he will yet deserve an article, written by another editor. As it stands, it seems a strong case of self-promotion via a single-purpose account. (By the way, I hope you don't mind that I fixed your link to WP:AUTO, Shoombooly.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course I don't mind, as long as this means you will from now on fix ALL my mistakes for me? :P Shoombooly (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64

List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic list/software guide. JJL (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate, unsourced list, too small to be of any use. Possibly written just to state a point. JIP | Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Could end up being too long to be maintainable as well. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I started this page because this information is not centralized anywhere on the web. I hope that with time this could be added to by people who have experienced success or failure with Vista 64. I personally need this list. When I embarked on a quest to make Vista 64 work, I could not find a list like this anywhere. I am certainly not on a mission to make a point, especially not one negative to Microsoft. I personally hope Vista 64 works, so the assertion otherwise strikes me as ridiculous.

No one else has bothered to make a helpful list. Wounldn't you all like an encyclopedic reference on this matter?

It is unencyclopedic because I don't have time to write the whole dissertation myself. It is intended to be just a start.

It is too small because it is just a start.

Having said all that, wouldn't you all rather be writing something, and adding, instead of just being a bunch of deleters. Build it, don't break it down.

I can't believe you all would try to break it down before it is even started up. Or, you all would have me write a complete and cross referenced article in one fell swoop. I don't have time for that so go ahead and delete it if that floats your boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to abandon this page for now, as the work will likely be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some of you are unaware of the difference between Vista and Vista 64. If you were aware, then you would be aware of the need to know what works and what doesn't --Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Although it is laudable that you tried to spread knowledge, there's various ways to do so. An encyclopedia needs references, and when you post an article that's completely unreferenced and has little context, people read it nonetheless, and, apparently, AfD it. You don't have to write articles in one swoop, but you could easily do most of the work in Notepad first, it's all plain text and some simple commends here in wikiland. As the article stands now, it's hard to maintain, one could list every program ever made, and how would we check all this info? A list of 32 bit programs incompatible with v64 would have been better than including both options in one article. As it stands now, delete. Shoombooly (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I put in some of the references. There is no way I am going to write the whole thing in notepad and then import a copy ready article. I was hoping other people would see the value and start adding to the article. I see this page as a very valuable support for the Windows Vista 64 article, which I also started at the same time. I still don't see how anybody can come upon an article on the day it was started and mark it for deletion. That just boggles my mind. Is there a competition to see who can mark it for deletion first? Whatever happened to the talk page? Just boom, come along and bang it out as worthless with two words. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• An article listing only the programs that don't work would be very biased, and would not be helpful to people who want to know what does work. If there was a list of software that didn't work, and someone wanted to know if a particular program works, and they didn't see it on the list, there would be no way to differentiate what works from what wasn't even tested.

• this article could get very large, similar to [32], however that list is NOT specific to Vista 64. As far as I can tell, the Vista 64 list does not exist yet. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment Articles that long may not be appropriate for wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, not an almanac. If there's a list of what doesn't work, the rest will probably work, not that biased i think. You don't have to write a feature ready article from scratch, but you don need to assert notability in the first draft of the article, otherwise it ends up here. The first thing to consider is how your article links up with the articles already on wikipedia. Lonely long articles with little context end up here much quicker than short stubs that have context, references and links from other articles. Before writing anything at all, that should be on your mind. Also, it's debatable whether or not a list like that is encyclopedic content, it will need a lot of convincing people, and what you provided so far, apparently, didn't convince everyone. Keep in mind that we all want a good wikipedia, but that not everyone goes about it the same way, but that when there's consensus about an issue, this is usually not anything personal, and you should not get angry if your ideas don't catch on. Better find ways to make them catch on than start an angry rant, because that will just alienate everyone from your point of view. Be patient, and be resourceful. Shoombooly (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment I have used Vista 64 quite a bit. To assume that any given software works is a mistake. In my experience, getting 32 bit software to work is a moderate challenge. Anyone who has gone through the trouble that I have will appreciate having a resource to go to to find out what works and what doesn't. In todays day and age, it is likely that searchers will wind up at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has many lists and tables. I see no problem with another one. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment But how will you prove what works and what doesn't? It's probably all going to be original research? (WP:OR Shoombooly (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am not a grizzled old hand at Wikipedia. I am just someone who likes Wikipedia and is trying my bit to make it better. If you check out the references you will see that none of them are OR. I have picked content straight from the software's web site (Microsoft, Apple) or from the consensus of software support boards. This does not seem to be OR to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment That's true. But they should ALL have a reference. And even then, it just doesn't feel like a proper article yet. How will you link to it from other wiki articles? Shouldn't all programs have hyperlinks to their WP page, and/or homepage? What's the context of the article? How do i get there from the mainpage? That all needs answered. And even then, not everyone may be convinced, be prepared to have discussions about it with people. Shoombooly (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you Shoombooly for the constructive input. Those are excellent questions. I will have to eventually provide all the links you note that are neccessary. The genesis of this article is that I had real trouble getting Vista and old programs to run under Vista 64. I don't think that I am the only one who hoped that Wikipedia could provide some help, in an encyclopedia manner. However, it seems now, that there is no one here besides myself who thinks as I do. So, it is probably hopeless. I was hoping that others would see the potential here and run with it. Instead the opposite has happened and it seems likely the article will get deleted. That seems like a shame to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as WP:NOT is pretty clear that Wikipedia is not a directory. A single page that intends to list every piece of software that is available, whether or not it is compatible with 64-bit editions of Windows Vista, is hopelessly unmaintainable. There are well over 100,000 pieces of software that have been written for Windows over the years; if someone wants to find out if a particular piece of software is compatible with 64-bit editions of one specific operating system, they aren't going to come to this article to find out -- they'll either go to the article in question, or to the software vendor's web site. -/- Warren 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not attempt to categorize so much software, just the big and interesting ones. There are a lot of lists and tables on Wikipedia, including some for Windows itself. [[33]], [[34]], [[35]], etc.
    • What counts as big and interesting ones? That will differ from someone's perspective. For example, none of the s/w listed sound interesting to me. Is there anything you can suggest that would remove the subjectiveness of the definition? --soum ^talk 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. An absolutely unmaintainable list. Aside from the points raised by Warren and others above, let's just assume that it somehow can be made into a comprehensive enough listing of (in)compatible software, nicely formatted and reffed and all that. But softwares are going to be updated all the time - who's going to keep the list updated to reflect present situation? And outdated list would be more useless than no list. Also, how much purpose will the list serve? Software compat is improving day by day. Just saying a software is compatible with Vista x64 isn't useful - most probably the user is looking for the patch/version that gives the compatibility. And those are best suited for the indiv. articles - thats where the user will first look. The goal of the author is commendable, but a list in an encyclopedia isn't the way to that end. --soum ^talk 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fully agree with soum. Commendable goal, but as i said before, be resourceful and find another way to get the information across. Shoombooly (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ForestWander Nature Photography

ForestWander Nature Photography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A father and son company that takes photos of rural West Virginia and that gives many of them away via the internet. They were once a finalist in one category of a competition, and I'm willing to believe that there was once an article about them in the Charleston Gazette (although either its server or my browser refuses to display this). And -- plastic at the ready? -- you may choose to purchase the prints too, via the links thoughtfully provided in the article.

However, Wikipedia is not a web directory, the company doesn't seem to have won any competitions, there's no mention of any exhibitions or substantial coverage in any magazines (let alone book-length publication), and it all seems of very minor note; unless of course you want free screensavers of rural West Virginia, in which case Google will no doubt locate them for you.

Moreover, the only contributor of substance to this article has been User:Forestwanderer. I start to suspect COI.

I prodded this article on 6 June. Forestwanderer proceeded to make a number of edits to the page, which to me indicated a desire to keep it; I therefore removed the prod notice myself.

The last of the edits by Forestwanderer has a summary pointing people to further justifications to be read on the talk page. Yes, do take a look: it's quite revealing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be blatent WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Thetrick (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete there is some notability. A local newspaper article (the link worked when I tried it) And finalist in a Nature Conservancy photo competition is not nothing. But it is not enough to justify an article. It may be that this photographer will gain enough attention to merit an article at some future date.Elan26 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't see notability here and this is blatant advertising and a conflict of interest to boot. freshacconcispeaktome 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Personally I would have db-spammed it at first review since it's blatant advertising, and the author is same as company name, so never NPOV. The democratic way will do too. Shoombooly (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Should have been G11'd - blatant spam ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walk the Walk (album)

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

Duff has denied working on a debut album via an interview with JustJared.com. Xerz (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources about this album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Here's the link confirming her denial of the album: [36]. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The interview just shows the unreliability of the article source. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's see if she can sing first, before devoting an article to it. (oh, and no reliable sources)Shoombooly (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece side comics

One Piece side comics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT and WP:N completely. List of the side stories from included in the One Piece manga volumes, which are not notable and not anything generally mentioned within anime/manga articles unless they are relevant to he work itself. Failed PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - possibly merge some of it to List of One Piece chapters, but probably largely just not notable. Doceirias (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge to List of One Piece chapters mentions of each side story into the list of chapters for the volume it's in. (Assuming you can parse that -- sleep deprevation does bad things to my clarity.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with List of One Piece chapters, and/or List of One Piece episodes for the side stories that have been animated. {{Justyn (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}}

Merge Too long, but notable. Otherwise i concur with the 2 Merge-voters Shoombooly (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Omnitrix aliens

List of Omnitrix aliens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only pertains to the subject inside the fictional universe in the American animated cartoon show Ben 10. I do not believe this establishes notability. Dabby (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep lack of sources notwithstanding, this list is a primary character list and essential to the understanding of the series. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep not THAT notable, but apparently important to the series, and it's not going to be possible to merge this into the main Ben 10 article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the minute details of this tv show are not notable. --T-rex 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced well enough, lists the voice actors, list makes sense as its own grouping, and the article exists on nine other wikipedias. Good enough for me. In the very worst case, this should be trimmed and merged into List of characters in Ben 10. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced, has been frequently edited since 2006, might be too long but that's no ground for deletion. Being detailed about things isn't such a bad thing, as long as it is readable. Shoombooly (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is full of imformation that the fans of both series can enjoy.I also agree with Sgeureka, at the very worst it could be moved, not deleted.Pacboy94 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• keep I agree with The Rogue Penguin, it is well sourced and essential to the understanding of what the series is about, ben's aliens.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)