The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the below discussion, the science park is being given as the reason for notability. If this is the case, then the science park should have an article. No indication of how the school is notable. Neıl 龱 10:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

West Parish Elementary School

West Parish Elementary School (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. Nothing shown that asserts this school's notability, and there appears to be little difference between this and thousands of other such schools. Contested multiple PRODs. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no references, no assertion of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references. The school's science park is clearly notable based on the media coverage it has received. --Eastmain (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMO, the science park (despite the refs) doesn't raise this school to the level of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - notable science park backed up by reliable references thus meeting WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A few news stories about one aspect of the school doesn't seem enough to establish notability - basing an article around this would mean that it falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as passes WP:N and is WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, but just because an article can exist, should it exist? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • If you're after a philosophical discussion try my talk page.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:V and WP:N. Needs expansion however. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the notability is insufficient--local interest only-- & I doubt the article could really be expanded. DGG (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The picture of the science park notes that it is a community science park. It may be located on the grounds, but this seems to disqualify the school as having ownership, and thus cannot be used to establish the notability of the school. Lacking further claims, I am seeing this article as not asserting notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the first parks in the country of its type. It can be expanded much more than it currently is contrary to what some might think. CelesJalee (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If the park is actually notable, then let it, not the school, have its own article. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I see that the articles that were accessible noted that the parent organization had some involvement in raising money. I checked the school and district website and can find no mention of this park being owned or operated by the school or district. I think to establish notability, it will take more than proving the park exists; there should be evidence that the school/district owns the park. Otherwise, it seems to me this is notability by geographic association. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Do you realize that the school owning the park or not has absolutely nothing to do with the notability factor? This mention in the Boston Globe article, "the vision of a group of parents and staff at the West Parish elementary school who are working to make an interactive "science park" a reality" does however bestow notability on the subject (which is the school NAMED in the story by the way) via a WP:RS no less. It never fails to amaze me how many people never seem to get a grasp of WP:N. The article proves the school exists so there's a pass for WP:V and that's policy by the way.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Response - I will overlook your insult, as I do understand WP:N, and gently remind you to keep your argument focused on the subject, not other editors. Let me put it this way: if some parents at my Chicago high school decided to get together and raise money for a community botanic garden, and a news article mentioned they were all associated by being parents of students in high school "X", does this give notability to school "X"? No one here is questioning WP:V. It is [[WP:N] that is at the heart of this debate. Just because a school is named in a WP:RS does not establish WP:N. If that were the case, any 6 year old who makes the honor roll in their small town would meet WP:N. Any school would eventually meet WP:N, since schools are invariably mentioned by name in an article. That does not establish WP:N either. The only aspect of notability that has been argued for in this AfD is that the school has the science park. I am asking that evidence be presented that the school or the district owns the park. This evidence has not been presented. I have looked for it myself, and have found nothing. Buildings generally do not meet WP:N simply because they are next to something notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:54, 7 July 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 by Orangemike , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Murder By Tejuana & Treachery By Bush and the Supreme Court

Murder By Tejuana & Treachery By Bush and the Supreme Court (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judging by the username, this article was written by the author and needs a lot of cleanup if it stays. Google throws up nothing except a few Wikipedia mirrors and one or two other sites - nothing that actually says anything about the book. Some of the author's claims are rather dubious. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable and likely selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not Notable ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-3-2008 • 00:38:15 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Checked the copyright records. The article is written by the author (which does not appear to be disclosed in the article--he refers to himself as "the author" without disclosing his name). Also he mentions some "litigation", unsourced, which appears to be designed to drum up some controversy. No Supreme Court mention on Oyez, no mention on Google--I would think there would be some coverage somewhere. The Sydney article doesn't appear in their archives, and the Melbourne title is too generic to search--but no article in 10 years has the keyword "Tejuana". I would thus consider this an advertisement. Eauhomme (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR and lack of WP:N. Artene50 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Those Australian newspaper references look very dubious - the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't have a 'section A' and the titles it's claimed that the stories were printed under are awful grammatically. Moreover, the SMH and Age are arguably Australia's leading newspapers, and they don't print book reviews or articles on unknown authors on page 7! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Bilge. A steaming pile of Dingo's kidneys. Etc. Nick mallory (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Blatant advertising with a side of hoax references. The only reason I'm not speedying is because there's an AfD underway. — Gwalla | Talk 15:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• G3 Obviously made up one day, feigned sources, no proof it even exists. Hoax. So tagged. (Gwalla, you can speedy something that's up for AfD if the speedy fits.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. — _Maggot^Syn 09:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kristin Rossum

Kristin Rossum (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharee Miller; taken with the currently discussed crime notability policy, this is a non-notable criminal. Taken with common sense, this crime however disturbing is not particularly noteworthy. Ironholds 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep, someone should check the facts in the wrongful death award, if true I think the article is notable.If false, it should be deleted.PB666 ^yap 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a check; what makes it notable? It isn't a covertly worded criticism or whatnot, i'm just interested. Ironholds 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The size of the award - it was record breaking, I think 100 million US. Verified the news source, also the reference should have been 'paraphrased' in the article for:

The de Villers contended in their suit that Rossum and her employer, the county of San Diego, shared the blame for Gregory de Villers' death on Nov. 6, 2000............In the end, the jury determined that Rossum was 75 percent responsible for de Villers' death and the county was 25 percent responsible. The county, which said it probably will appeal, was ordered to pay $1.5 million.^{Rossum unlikely to turn lurid crime tale into riches By Dana Littlefield Union-Tribune, San Diego}

There is more here than what you see in the article, so I think it would expand at some point.PB666 ^yap 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep , as the references provided in Kristin_Rossum#References indicate sufficient coverage of Kristin Rossum in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. John254 19:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - Not only from the debate below but from the previous full-length AfD debates there is no consensus that the material should be deleted. Merge discussions should take place on the articles talk page as for all other articles. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Donna Upson

Donna Upson (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural renomination. I had closed a previous debate (Afd2) as a merge, but was then approached by an editor regarding the expansion of this article. Details of that discussion are here. Enough time has now been given for the article to be expanded/referenced and a decision on this version should be made by the community. Please note the existence of a 3rd nomination which was closed early as out of process. Shereth 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• delete I saw no reason for this article to exist last time and I see no reason for it to exist now. failed election candidate who was convicted of a minor crime - I just don't see the sort of notability that we are looking for. A line on the election article - yes, a seperate article - no. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Please see User:Abd/Donna Upson for a partial compilation of sources on Upson, there are many, many newspapers and other reliable sources referring to her arrest in Canada and her candidacy, the events during the candidacy, and the outcome, plus there is a mention of her case in 2007, again in a Canadian newspaper. It is clear that these events, both in 2000 or 2001, I forget, and in 2003, made a big splash in Canada that is still remembered. The merge decision wasn't correct because there are plenty of RS for events relating to Upson that is utterly inappropriate for the election article, specifically what happened with the early charges, the later assault and failure to appear charges, all of it before the election. I also consider the time given too short. I am not the Lone Ranger.--Abd (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Failed municipal candidate (a fringe one at that) with a couple of news brief related to her arrest on hate crimes and subsequent release. Having followed Canadian news for years, I never heard of her until I stumbled upon the 2nd nomination for deletion of this article. I wouldn't call her case a "big splash" in any way. She may have had her 15 minutes of local fame in Ottawa and Halifax, but I cannot see any evidence of long term notability, and nothing that amounts to its own Wikipedia article. She's at most one line in the 2003 Ottawa election article.--Boffob (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment you could read the delete votes, the previous nominations (especially the second one) and the discussion provided in this nomination before saying "no reason to delete is provided".--Boffob (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• If a nominator can't be bothered to articulate some reason to delete the article then the nomination should be dismissed immediately. Starting a guessing game or fishing expedition is abuse of process. The topic clearly has some merit or it wouldn't have survived 3 previous nominations. AFD is not if at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again.. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, it seems that the nominator doesn't actually want to delete the article - he wants to unmerge it. This discussion has no business here - it should be conducted on the talk page(s) for the article(s) in question. AFD is for proposals to delete articles, not for other matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you would have been bothered to read what I said more thoroughly, you'd know that the nominator doesn't want anything except to generate more discussion on this matter as per an agreement with a certain editor who wanted to un-merge the material. Shereth 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Also - contrary to your statement this article has not "survived" 3 previous nominations. One was speedily closed without regards to the article itself, and one was closed as a merge, not keep. For you to characterize this as an attempt to game the system by repeatedly renominating the article demonstrates that you really aren't up to speed with what is going on here. I'd suggest you read the previous discussions prior to further attempting to draw conclusions as to the intentions of the nominator or other involved editors. Shereth 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• You should not start a process of this sort just to "generate more discussion" - that's what talk pages are for. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The first AfD for this article was in 2005, and the result was a clear Keep, 8 Keep /2 Delete+nom /2 abstain. One of the Delete voters commented about his Google search with few hits. What I found last month is that the bulk of RS for Upson is in newspaper archives that are not Googleable. I was able to find these where the content could be purchased. I didn't pay for content, so I only saw headlines and lead sentences, but there is plenty of source. When someone can get access to the articles, there is ample detail that hasn't been shown in the article, I'm sure. There are a couple of holes, mysteries, that would doubtless be explained in the full sources. For example, her arrest prior to the Ottawa election was quite likely from fallout from the 2000-2001 events. She was convicted of the original crimes and sentenced to, as I recall, two years. But after a year, an appeals court threw out some of the charges against her and her time was reduced and she was released. However, she was promptly rearrested on two assault charges from incidents while she was incarcerated, plus a failure to appear charge. She was released and I speculate that she never returned for trial, which then explains what she was arrested for in 2003 ("assault and failure to appear"). But I have found no source explicitly connecting the dots. It is probably in the detail I have been unable to see. I had been thinking of asking for assistance from Canadian editors who might have library access to the newspapers.

In the second AfD the nomination reason, by GreenJoe, was "Fails WP:BIO. She's a failed mayoral candidate. Not at all notable." Failed mayoral candidates don't usually have anything remotely like the national coverage she received, and it was not the first time she was covered. WP:POLITICIAN would indicate she's notable, because of that wide notice. The !vote was 4 for Merge, 9 Keep, and 9 Delete + nom. The closing admin, Shereth, decided on Merge as a compromise, but nobody had consulted the editors of the Ottawa election article! I'd say that most of the detail from the Upson article, reliably sourced, has no place in the Ottawa election article, specifically nearly all the information about the events of 2000-2001, which did receive national attention. After the AfD closed, the closing administrator agreed to reverse the Merge decision and allowed the article to be unblanked and developed, it now has far more source than it did previously, and there is plenty that hasn't been used yet.

The third AfD, a rapid renom (1 day after closure) by GreenJoe, was speedy closed by Shereth as premature. It had attracted 3 Keeps and one Merge/Conditional Keep before being closed, and one Keep added after. The nominator attempted to revert the closure, but then retired from Wikipedia with a comment showing that a strong issue for him was the "woman."[8], "At least I can say with a clear conscience that I don't support this woman." I mention this because we should be careful with AfDs based on a dislike of what the subject of the article stands for or believes, and the 2nd and 3rd AfDs seem to have proceeded from this.

So now we have the 4th AfD, which appears to be Shereth keeping his promise to renominate. Admirable, though I think a bit premature. But the information in the article is reliably sourced, and the fact that an abundance of reliable source exists indicates that she was notable at the time, and notability does not expire.--Abd (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fame and notability are two separate things. She was mildly (in)famous for a little while, but never notable in the encyclopedic sense. Read the entirety of WP:NOTE instead of taking the "Notability doesn't expire" part out of context. Notability doesn't expired "if a subject has met the general notability guideline". She doesn't meet the guideline. She was a small, local news event once for hate crimes, and once for a fringe candidacy. As a "politician" (in quote because anyone with a couple hundred bucks can be a mayoral candidate, she never actually actively did any politics), she fails to meet the guidelines. As a criminal, she fails to meet the guidelines. All you have is some coverage by reliable sources, mostly local media. But this falls under WP:BIO1E: "Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive..." is right there. The message is still cover the event, not the person. We have an article on the 2003 Ottawa elections. The only reason she was in the news at the time, as a fringe candidate, is because of her prior conviction. Altogether, it's still WP:BIO1E, so it doesn't amount to something worthy of its own article. --Boffob (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What Boffob has written is substantially false. It was not "a small, local news event." It was national news in Canada. Not just once. Yes, with a couple of hundred bucks you can be a candidate. Does this give you substantial CBC coverage? She got it. Are there six letters to the editor published in a major newspaper about the candidacy? There were. (I haven't seen the letters, but a lot of people were outraged.) Look at the sources page I mentioned above, User:Abd/Donna Upson (which, by the way, does not start with RS, it was compiled as I searched, and starts with a blog, but finds RS). "mostly local media" is major Canadian mainstream newspapers and CBC. She had CBC coverage in 2000 and in 2003. There are over thirty newspaper articles, I think, from major newspapers. Not all of them are independent, i.e., the same news source was sometimes used in various newspapers, and I haven't done a detailed analysis of how many truly independent articles there are, and I can't really tell from the summaries I have, since each newspaper edited the news differently, presenting different leads. By the way, I reread WP:NOTE following Boffob's suggestion, and it convinced me of her notability. I don't know where he gets the idea that this was a "small, local news event." Maybe it deserved to be, but it wasn't. (And there is more than one event here, there are several in 2000-2001 and several in 2003. There is also a mention of her in 2006, just an example (apparently considered notable by a newspaper) of a rare charge: hate crime. See the Sources page I reference.--Abd (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS. She made the news twice, mostly in briefs. Would her arrest make her worthy of her own wiki article? No, it's not a historically notable event (people getting arrested make it to the news, even national news, all the time). Would her failed mayoral candidacy make her worthy of her own article? Again, no, she was a fringe candidate. We need "historical notability". She has none. She was in the news essentially twice: once for a small crime, and once a few votes because the media created attention to her candidacy (controversy sells papers). The only notable event she was a part of was the 2003 Ottawa election, which makes her case fall under WP:BIO1E. As an example, Julie Couillard is undoubtedly much more notable than Donna Upson (the case made international news), yet see where the link redirects.--Boffob (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at each of these claims: "made the news twice, mostly in briefs." What does "twice" mean? There are reports from when she was charged with the hate crime. There are reports from when she was convicted. There are reports from when she appealed. There are reports from when she was released and rearrested. There are reports from when she filed for candidacy, an event that would ordinarily cause no reports or few reports at all, if she weren't notable. There were six letters to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen (not "minor local news") over her candidacy, speeches given by other candidates referring to her. There were reports when she was again arrested, and there were reports about her vote count, called "startling." Why "startling"? Because it was considered unusual, unexpectedly high. She was actually successful in what she set out to do, which was to display some support in the voting population for her fringe views. So "failed candidacy" would imply that she failed. She didn't. She succeeded, not in becoming the mayor, which wasn't her goal nor the goal of her supporters. It was to gain publicity, and she got it. Lots of it. No. The fact that she ran, alone, would not make her notable. But that she ran accompanied by widespread national notice and that she had been so noticed before does make her notable.

I see that there is actually substantial argument, very recent, that Julie Couillard deserves her own article. I have not investigated it, but I'll say this: if there is source for Ms. Couillard like there is for Donna Upson, this would be correct. The argument made here is a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, i.e, "other stuff does not exist." Which is actually quite untrue, I'm sure. We have other entries with less source showing notability. One might note that I have not raised that argument!

WP:NOT#NEWS contains this: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Upson satisfies the requirements of this, clearly. (Besides the fact that there was more than one event, even if we take the criminal case and its fallout, which continued for around three years, is an election a "single event?" actually, there were at least three widely reported events in connection with the election: her candidacy and the response, her arrest before the election, and the election results. Most minor "failed candidacies" would see only coverage in lists, nothing like what Upson received. As to the criminal charge, "hate crime" is actually an unusual charge in Canada, apparently, so unusual that in newspaper report of another hate crime case in 2006, Upson's case was mentioned. This alone shows notability! I.e, a reliable source referred to the case as unusual, worthy of note.

If Boffob is as incautious about his editing of articles as he has been about his comments here, I'm worried! What he calls "a few votes" wasn't, in context. It was "startling." He impeaches reliable source because they, if I translate it, publish what they think will interest readers. I.e., what their readers will consider notable. He's got it backwards! We use newspapers, generally, as reliable source for notability, precisely because this is what they do. They don't publish material that they don't consider notable, and we use their editorial judgement as proof of notability. That is, a single incident becomes notable enough that we might use a single report on it to justify a sentence in an article. And multiple reports, widespread, with even less than exists for Upson, shows sufficient notability for an article. If all of that source relates to what is legitimately a single incident, then the information would still properly be placed in an article on that incident (here, the Ottawa election article). But it doesn't so fit, it is broader than that. Her arrest and conviction in 2001-2002 was independently notable (as shown by the 2006 reference to it as a notable hate crime).

Finally -- yes, I hope it is finally, WP:BIO1E, as I read it and with a reasonable definition of "one event," suggests, not what Boffob claims, but that Upson have her own article. This is really just an expansion on WP:NOT#NEWS, cited as if it were some independent argument. I would guess that Boffob is Canadian (haven't checked beyond a brief look at earliest contributions), and we must realize and factor for the fact that many Canadians reacted with horror to her candidacy and have a strong interest in making it clear that she doesn't represent the Canadian public; this seems to have been the case with the prior nominator, GreenJoe. While some suspected POV of Boffob isn't directly relevant, we should be aware of the possible distortion of arguments that can come from a strong POV. I have utterly no axe to grind here other than an interest in having Wikipedia be complete and balanced, within and satisfying the notability and verifiability policies and guidelines, but, I suppose, once you have researched a subject, looking for reliable sources, there can be some attachment to seeing that research used. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but all the news related to her crimes do not make them a notable event. As I said, again, tons of people get arrested, undergo the standard legal procedures and all this gets reported in the news all the time. Altogether, even with "national coverage" (some news brief get widely reported) for Donna Upson, they do not make an "event" worthy of a Wikipedia article. Without her candidacy, you couldn't make an article, there's not doubt about that. After these non-Wiki worthy trials and tribulations, she was a candidate for a municipal election. That election has a Wiki article. All news coverage she received in that time is tied to the election. She ended up sixth (out of how many) with about 1300 votes (0.71%) which one journalist in Halifax called "startling", though it's just really visibility bias. It's still a pretty clear case of WP:BIO1E.--Boffob (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No. There is newspaper notice of her hate crime conviction in 2006, not related to the election. Because, apparently, of the rarity of such, it was considered notable. By a newspaper. What standard is Boffob using? Personal opinion? The coverage of Upson is not normal for most criminal acts, nor for "failed candidacies." Now, let me ask, is the opinion of "one journalist" writing in an edited major newspaper, as a bylined article, not an editorial, to be discarded in favor of the opinion of Wikipedia Editor Boffob? There may be much more, I've only cited what was relatively easy (not "easy") to find on-line. This is a newspaper mention of the original event, totally unrelated to the election, as far as I can tell, in 2006. If that is not strong evidence of notability, I'm at a loss. There is more, too, outside of clear reliable source, particularly from Canada, international notice, but I haven't dealt with that, since the Canadian RS is so plentiful. Not one article picked up and repeated, not just one event, period.

This is what I have on that article, an excerpt from the newspaper archive:

Man faces hate crime charge

The Chronicle-Herald - 01-18-2006 - 340 words

Kristen Lipscombe Staff Reporter - [...] said Tuesday that hate crime charges are "not very common at all. In July 2000, Donna Marie Upson, dubbed Baby Hitler by fellow Ku Klux Klan members, was sentenced in Dartmouth provincial court [...]

Note that it was not her opinion. It was the opinion of someone she -- and her editors -- considered notable, I don't know who it was yet. This is one reason why we allow more time for articles to be better sourced! It might actually take months to fill in these details.

--Abd (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's agree to move the rest of these comments to the Donna Upson talk page, for now, shall we?--Boffob (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. How many more AfDs will there be? -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Had she just been a candidate for mayor, she's probably not notable. Had she just been a random hate-crime arrestee, she's not notable. It's the combination of the two that make it worth having an article about her—and she certainly deserves a stand-alone article and not merger into the article on the mayoral race. There are ample reliable sources, the article is neutral, and I don't see it as an unreasonable intrusion on her right to future privacy (especially since at least the existence of the news articles can be found with a Google search). (Meta-discussion: I think it was reasonable to have this 4th AfD given the lack of consensus on the 2nd AfD. There has been discussion on the talk page, and I think it was sufficient consideration there before, well, relisting the issue in AfD to see if we have consensus.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Ottawa municipal election, 2003, as of AfD2. As far as I can tell from the article she didn't gain any notability since AfD2, so I don't see any reason not to stick with that result - it's still just the two events, the crime and her candidacy. The many references all just point to those two events, and their subsequent fallout.
  Notable enough to be mentioned in the context of the municipal election, not notable enough for her own article. --Amalthea (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Source found by John254 seems to address any notability concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sharee Miller

Sharee Miller (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Taken with the currently discussed crime notability policy, this is a non-notable criminal. Taken with common sense, this crime however disturbing is not particularly noteworthy. Ironholds 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I guess you are referring to WP:N/CA? Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - It's just another crime. I can't find anything that makes her notable IMO. There are thousands of murders daily around the world. Yes, she made an appeal in 2003, as I stated and linked to at Talk:Sharee Miller. It's delete per WP:BLP1E in my opinion. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as this case has been the subject of a mainstream book, "Fatal Error", ISBN 0786015241, as well as other coverage in popular media, as described in Sharee_Miller#In_popular_culture. John254 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per John254. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Participation in this debate is low, but the concerns made are reasonable, and I see no need to extend discussion on an unsourced article like this. Recreation is of course possible as more information becomes available as we approach the release date. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We Mean Business

We Mean Business (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album, no release date, fails WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Breakbeard

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

Per WP:MUSIC: A nice, solid looking article at first, but a read of the contents shows it to be yet another myspace-band. User removed speedy tag without comment;user removed notability and inline-citations tags without comment. Fribbler (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No significant coverage from reliable sources that I can see, their 1st EP, produced by their own record label, has not been released yet.--BelovedFreak 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable band, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, written like a promo piece. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable and per above ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:BAND. Article is very well written but boils down to saying that they've self-published an album and have played some small venues, plus some trivia. References says they were mentioned in SF Station, but that's just an events calendar site, and a search for the band's name there brought up nothing. BTW, I had to laugh when I read the bit about how "Breakbeard rules!" is their slogan. I mean, "* rules" is just a basic shout of appreciation. It's not exactly noteworthy that somebody would shout it at a concert. — Gwalla | Talk 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Very low google hits. Article does not have any authoritative refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of web conferencing software

Comparison of web conferencing software (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating on behalf of User:GaryECampbell who feels that this article had been created purely to promote another article and should be deleted. I am currently neutral as I'm not completely sure whether or not an article like this belongs in Wikipedia, or whether or not it is notable. As it stands it is unreferenced, and could be original research. BelovedFreak 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to All: I am withdrawing my AfD nomination for this article. - GaryECampbell (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: - To correct my statement below: - There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 is related to any Wikipedia vendor article. There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 spamming to the Microsoft Live Meeting article (and other vendor articles) is related to any Wikipedia vendor article. There is no proof that vendors are editing ratings for their competitors. There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 is associated to the person that created this article. There is no proof edits led by 206.80.0.98 on July 1 to this article, then followed by the creator of this article the same day to the web conferencing article after both took a two week wiki break are related. And there is no proof posting a 2 week old copy of the entire Web Conferencing article to accomplish a 1 line edit was anything but an error any experienced editor could make. And there is no proof of any conflict of interest. We all know ISP's retain connectivity records that provide identification information. But there is no action or reason I know of at present to dig deeper.

• I therefore apologize for the inconvenience and my incorrect statement of conclusions. I apologize for stating such in this limited exposure space. However, gross errors about the market leader WebEx (purchased by Cisco for $3 billion dollars) provided by 206.80.0.98 and the author were highly exposed in the web conferencing article which is the #1 search result returned by Google when searching for web conferencing. Let's hope all such errors and impacts will be forgotten. Frost and Sullivan states that small audience Web conferencing is expected to generate a billion dollars of revenue in 2008, and large audience web conferencing will generate $400 million in revenue in 2008. This space is not a playground, it is serious business. As I had stated below, Wikipedia readers must be provided with accurate reliable information, preferably tested with all claims confirmed. Since I was able to resolve this concern in a different and non-conflicting manner, I withdrew my 2nd AfD nomination. If others wish to replace my 2nd nomination, my suggestion (as BelovedFreak suggests), is to focus on the notability and factual citations (none) of this specific article (rather than the general subject) that will affect a billion+ dollar market. - GaryECampbell (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

*Delete - The article was created by editors of PictureTalk. They are a web conferencing vendor. The same editors created this article. They are creating a comparison article which includes themselves and their competitors. Delete as per WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:COI. I also question the concept of such a complex article by Wikipedians as per WP:NOR (no orginal research), as 60+ vendors are in this space, with 100's of points that need to be considered. This article is linked in Web Conferencing, it should be replaced with references to notable research companies such as Frost and Sullivan, IDC or Wainhouse Research that provide vendor comparisons people can trust - GaryECampbell (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC).

:*Comment - I have been involved in this marketplace for 8 years and must therefore acknowledge a possible WP:COI. As an expert in this field who has reviewed many such articles by notable trusted research companies, I find the content highly suspect. As such, it caught my attention, hence my nomination to AfD. GaryECampbell (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think it would be better if there isn't another more neutral article on it already, that one be created (or re-created) by people with knowledge on the field and not have WP:COI. From the ground up, it doesn't have to be complete immediately, but it would be good to have. Just out of curiosity, how does "nominating on behalf of" work? Is it really that much more work, or is it tagged, or....?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*Reply to Noian - I'm not sure I agree. Such articles (complex technical product comparisons) are a big can of worms. Such articles can be legally contentious. It will be constantly slanted by vendors, their employees, competition, users and paid puppets. Such is the case with this article (created by a vendor rating their own product) which fails under WP:COI, WP:NOR, WP:V. GaryECampbell (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to Noian I'm not sure how "nominating of behalf" works, I just kind of did it, folowing a discussion about the article at Editor_assistance/Requests (See Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Spamming_Vandalism_Notice). User:GaryECampbell was not comfortable nominating it himself, saying "I'm just too green and wet behind the ears". I removed a speedy deletion tag, not feeling that it qualified, and brought it here for discussion. I don't know if I did the wrong thing by nominating it instead of GaryECampbell, it just seemed the best idea to me.--BelovedFreak 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE - It is useful to compare features of software- If that is the case, then pages of all the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_comparisons

should be deleted. PS: I created this page am I am not affiliated to any company. I am just a simple user curious about the comparison. Diego Torquemada (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Can you prove the current things on the page isn't original research? That it is verifiable? Almost all reviews/comparisons are slanted one way or the other, and if you are not (which I don't know if you are or not) a expert on the subject, it wouldn't be close to neutral. I think either the page needs a restart by experts on the subject (note comment earlier) or delete.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I see no evidence to the effect that a specific article is promoted, nor that the nominated article is created by a specific web conferencing vendor. Gary, perhaps you could share your reasons for believing so? Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:* Reply to Ryttaren - Thanks for asking. I will post facts this evening (busy weekend). - GaryECampbell (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Slanting can be the smallest things.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Comparison of web conferencing software and PictureTalk have both been edited by 206.80.0.98 which may have introduced the perceived bias towards PictureTalk in Comparison of web conferencing software, but the articles were created by independent editors, months apart, and were edited by several others since creation. The comment on the first revision of Comparison of web conferencing software is "First page, please help me completing it" and it was created by Diegotorquemada who appears to have a long history editing here. Doesn't that initial revision comment explain why this comparison is mostly empty? Why not add more vendors if that's a problem? 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"*Comment Does anyone know if there is another version of this page somewhere else?

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

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

The result was Keep per partial withdraw and rewrite. — _Maggot^Syn 09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Headlong (Ings novel)

Headlong (Ings novel) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a book review. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. "Strongly recommended by this reviewer. It cries out for a sequel". Definitely WP:OR Ros0709 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per the article rewrite, Keep. Ros0709 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This book was reviewed in New Scientist. Since the book was published back in 1999, there may be other reviews that are not readily accessible on the internet. There is also a review on infinityplus.co.uk and an author interview with information about the book on sfsite.com. I don't know much about science fiction, but those websites look fairly reliable. The article is in bad shape at the moment, but that can be fixed through editing and is not a reason for deletion. I'll see if I can tidy the article up a bit. Bláthnaid 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - When I posted the AFD this was 100% a book review with almost no encyclopedic content. I see that over the course of the day it has become an actual article so I will close the AFD. I just wanted to make it clear that what is there now is not what I put up for AFD. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Rbanzai :-) However, please note what to do before nominating an AfD. If a book's author has his own article, you can redirect or merge the book to the author's article rather than nominating for deletion. Bláthnaid 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Remark - I apologize for all the fuss I caused by just describing what I read; I know there is a big scuffle going on in Wikipedia over what should or should not be allowed in, and I probably should have read the rule book before adding anything; but, well, I don't actually takes rules very seriously. Sorry. Incidentally, the revised entry is much better! Thanks to those who fixed it up! PS: As the author of over 300 publications in scientific journals, I can assure you that everything is subject to personal opinion. In Physics we believe in the existence of consistent objective reality, but the route to truth takes many turns. In Literature, well, ... JHBrewer (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Note that the nominator of this AfD removed the notification from the article with the text "Removed my AFD since the article has dramatically changed since it was posted this morning. Good work!" thus appears to have withdrawn the nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

PictureTalk

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

Nominating on behalf of User:GaryECampbell. It's currently unsourced and demonstrates no notability. Looking through google hits, I cannot see any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so I don't think it meets notability guidelines and should be deleted. I am willing to change my mind if notability can be demonstrated. BelovedFreak 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. "I am willing to change my mind if notability can be demonstrated."- Belovedfreak 76.179.164.79 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - could not find any reliable third-party sources to back up notability. The content of the stub is extremely short so it's not obviously an advertisement, but without any sources I don't see why this article should stay. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The article has existed since February, they've had sufficient time to improve it, the primary editors of the article have spamed all competing vendor and web conferencing articles to link to their company page. Though spamming is an unrelated matter, dubious activity and no effort to improve their article over a 5 month period shows the objective of their article is solely for advertising. Please note I may be in a WP:COI as I am involved in this marketplace. I am also an expert in web conferencing. Had they not spammed every single topic related to web conferencing and other vendor articles (to link to their company article), I would not be involved. GaryECampbell (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This article was previously voted upon and deleted in 2005 - See 2005 results - GaryECampbell (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't assert or show notability. One source, the company webpage. Created by a WP:SPA, see Special:Contributions/Venant. Faradayplank (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Request speedy under G4. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Do these help establish notability? Non-press release articles (I think) and awards it won (all from 2002-2003 though). [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Independence Dai 2

Independence Dai 2 (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertising article about NN future event - of which there are literally thousands every summer in the UK alone - that was already speedied once and upon re-creation today has had the speedy tag removed, so wearily bringing it here instead. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Facts, article does not say what town, what nation, it looks like its directed at a regional english speaking audience.PB666 ^yap 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete The BBC link here shows this is a one day event. Artene50 (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep (nomination was withdrawn). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Preus

Robert Preus (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No particular notability for this priest. (Also written from a distinctly Lutheran POV, but the man doesn't seem to have gained encyclopedic calibre regardless.) Biruitorul ^Talk 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm now convinced this passes WP:BIO. With apologies, I withdraw the nomination. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Abundant references in reliable sources at this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs a major clean-up for POV problems, but the subject is clearly notable, as demonstrated by numerous sources provided by Eastmain above. Many of them give in-depth coverage of the subject, such as [15][16][17], for example. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep in the absence of any BLP issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Wolk

Andrew Wolk (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No particular notability; interestingly, written in the same resume-like tone by the author of Amory Lovins and Michael Potts, which have similar POV issues. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the principal author. In defense of the proposition that Andrew Wolk is a notable academic, I would cite the Wikipedia guideline: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable.... 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources."

Wolk, a faculty member at MIT, is regarded by independent sources, such as the Boston Globe and Fast Company Magazine, as a significant expert in his areas of social impact research and social entrepreneurship. To document this fact, I have added links to a recent Globe interview with Wolk on his publication of a book, Business Planning for Social Impact; and to a Fast Company Magazine profile of him.

I would argue that if there are POV issues with this article, the proper course would be to undergo the normal editing process rather than a deletion of the article.Jhutson64 (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete unless notability can be proven aside from sources already given. The only reliable, third party source given was the Boston Globe interview, but the bulk of the source were the subject's own words, except for one paragraph which concerned solely his work with Root Cause, and it does not state in any form that the man is regarded as a significant expert in his field.--Samuel Tan (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed to weak keep (see below)--Samuel Tan 10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Substantive external media coverage exists in multiple, reputable online and dead-tree sources. Whether or not he is a "significant expert in his field" is irrelevant - that is neither objectively definable nor a deletion criteria. FCYTravis (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author again: I just added a link to Boston College, Carroll School of Management, Profile of Faculty Member Andrew Wolk, which notes, "Wolk has spoken on social ventures at Harvard University, and The Vermont for Business Responsibility, National Gathering for Social Entrepreneurs, More then Money and United Leaders conferences." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhutson64 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: I just added a link to a second Boston Globe article, 'Streetwise MBA' Program Helps Small Business Owners Advance, August 21, 2006, describing the impact of Wolk's work and quoting him on launching a new approach to social entrepreneurship.Jhutson64 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete He is not a notable academic. In contradiction to the page cited above, The Boston College faculty list [18] does not include him, and he is listed on the Boston College Business Institute page as an "affiliate" No publications are listed anywhere--he is apparently a successful consultant. Whether he's successfull enough for notability is another matter. That he has given a number of talks at various meetings is not notability. DGG (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: Wolk's notability as an academic, as an author, and as a social innovator, is established by profiles and interviews of him in credible secondary sources, such as The Boston Globe. His three publications, listed in the Wikipedia entry, include a Root Cause How-to Guide, entitled Business Planning for Enduring Social Impact (which you can find both on the Root Cause site and on Amazon.com); a chapter in the Small Business Administration’s annual report to the president of the United States, titled “Social Entrepreneurship and Government: A New Breed of Entrepreneurs Developing Solutions to Social Problems”; and a white paper copublished with the Aspen Institute, titled Advancing Social Entrepreneurship: Recommendations for Policy Makers and Government Agencies. The fact that he has been a featured speaker at prominent conferences shows that he is well-regarded and notable in his field.Jhutson64 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: I have added links to Wolk's three publications, all available on the Root Cause site. I would note that the publication Business Planning for Social Impact is also offered through Amazon.com. And on the Amazon page, there are excerpts from positive reviews of the book by a fellow faculty member at MIT (where Wolk is a Senior Lecturer) and by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. For example, the book is characterized as "The gold standard in business planning for organizations addressing social problems," by Edward B. Roberts, David Sarnoff Professor, Management of Technology, MIT Sloan School of Management; Founder and Chair, MIT Entrepreneurship. This level of praise seems to cement Wolk's notability as an academic, even apart from the positive review in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.Jhutson64 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: I have added a link to a Chronicle of Philanthropy article quoting Wolk on social entrepreneurship. Since the Chronicle is a paper of record for the philanthropic world, the fact that Wolk is profiled and quoted on his field of social entrepreneurship tends to establish his credibility and notability.Jhutson64 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: Added link to newspaper editorial from The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA), quoting "nationally known social entrepreneurship expert Andrew Wolk."Jhutson64 (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing my stance from weak delete to weak keep, because although many of the claims to notability are very shaky, a few sources do suggest notability and may fulfill the criteria in WP:PROF. Since the issue here is one of notability, I'll state my reason against and for notability.

Reasons against:

1. Of the three profiles given, one is not substantial, another seems to be down, and the last one is not a secondary source. WP:BIO suggests that insubstantial sources can be used to establish a person's notability only when there are multiple such sources.
2. Having published works does not make an academic notable; the works should be significant and well-known, and little has been shown for this point, except "positive reviews" of one book on this page of amazon.com. There are a total of four reviews, one by a colleague and three by customers.
3. I have not been able to find sources that show how well-regarded the subject is from having spoken at prominent conferences. If you have such a source, link it :)

Reasons for:

1. We have seen two secondary sources that could be used to argue that the subject is a significant expert per WP:PROF. (1) a claim to wide recognition by amazon.com, and (2) a claim to national recognition by 2theadvocate.com. Having two such sources may fulfill the first criteria in WP:BIO: "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.", unless the amazon.com editorials are considered unreliable. (Are they?)--Samuel Tan 10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: Repaired broken link to MIT Entrepreneurship Center, Faculty Profile of Andrew Wolk.Jhutson64 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Principal author: Added link to Boston Business Journal, September 5, 2003. Article quoting Wolk as an "expert" on social innovation.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A Light For Eternity

A Light For Eternity (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single from a band of uncertain notability itself Madcoverboy (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N issues. No coverage of this album from reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Words I Love You

The Words I Love You (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single from group of uncertain notability Madcoverboy (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:Music#Songs. Thinboy00 @813, i.e. 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Strong delete or merge/redirect as appropriate. Same rationale. --Thinboy00 @817, i.e. 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Doublespeak argument

Doublespeak argument (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently original research. Cf. [19] Przepla (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
*Comment. I've added a CSD G12 tag to this article as a blatant copyvio. Should be gone within an hour or so. Sorry, misread that, the article in question is quoting Wikipedia, not the other way round. Oops. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. John254 17:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete original research. B.Wind (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete under CSD G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page), by PeterSymonds. Non-admin closure. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 03:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Hurricane Magazine (Canadian Magazine)

Atlantic Hurricane Magazine (Canadian Magazine) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recently-established magazine of limited, if any, notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The entire "article" consists of

Atlantic Hurricane Magazine is a Canadian Magazine based in Markham, Ontario. The magazine was made just in February 2008.

. That, and an infobox that lists the "editor" as Microsoft Word 2007. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, cites no references, and a Google search for "Atlantic Hurricane Magazine" brings up a grand total of eight hits, of which one is the official website (on freewebs) and the rest are ads or directory listings. --Hut 8.5 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable and per above ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm the creator, doesn't the sign say "This article is going under major revamping, please don't put a speedy delete sign." So, however posted the speedy delete sign was not allowed to. The article is going under major revamping as I have new information coming in. Whenaxis (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

An AfD nomination is not a speedy deletion. You have five days to improve the article before this discussion is closed. Corvus cornix_talk 22:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. Sole delete preference was WP:IDONTLIKEIT and did not address notability. Non-admin closure Skomorokh 00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Catron

Michael Catron (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:BIO Madcoverboy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notable comic publisher, founder of Peanuts publisher Fantagraphics among other things Murray Pishoff (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep He is probably notable (the company he founded has published some very important comic books) but there are no sources at all, and the article is barely a proper stub as it is. If kept must be expanded. --Bonadea (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This does not influence the notability of the article, but note that the contributors to it (which includes Murray Pishoff) are probable socks of blocked vandal User:Wroth of Groth. If so, there may be a COI issue as well. --Bonadea (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Expand Needs much expansion, but a totally notable guy in comics publishing. DollyD (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Very poor article, of little value. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable founder of a number of notable companies. 210.87.17.39 (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep great article Veux-tu coucher avec moi (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep keep it you wikipederasts Condamnez-vous tout pour baiser (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Untitled 9th studio album

Untitled 9th studio album (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Untitled future albums should be speedily deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I agree in principle, but if you look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles (specifically number 7), albums are not eligible for speedy. Sigh. TN‑X-Man 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. That's a blanket statement that doesn't apply to all cases. If an album has been announced and there is sourcing, but for whatever reason it has no title as yet, then it satisfies notability. It's no different than the fact we had an article called Bond 22 for a long time before Quantum of Solace was announced as the title. I'm not saying this particular article justifies notability, but it shouldn't be a blanket cause for deletion. 23skidoo (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - My apologies, I should have been more specific. I agree that it's not a general policy. I actually checked WP about once a day for weeks before Guitar Hero II came out to see if any new tracks had been announced. I meant that I agreed that one-line articles that only mention that an album is supposed to come out should be speedied. Sorry for the mix-up. TN‑X-Man 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, for now. Good to know they're getting back in the circuit, and if they're talking about it on Rockline, then it's probably for sure - but there need to be more sources of info, other than a radio interview session. As such, no prejudice to future recreation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. If kept, this article title needs to be disambiguated as it is far too generic. 23skidoo (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • More like it needs to be renamed. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC and TPH's Law.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Transformers: Cybertron episodes

List of Transformers: Cybertron episodes (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be notable enough, and very few articles link to it. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - 1) Episode lists are pretty standard for the Anime project. This one, admitedly, needs a lot of cleanup (WP:PLOT). 2) "Doesn't seem to be notable enough" sounds a lot like "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, episode lists are a standard for any television series and anime series of this length. It needs some serious reformatting and clean up, but to topic as a whole is considered notable on all counts and it is an appropriate spin out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Standard list for notable television program. It needs cleanup, but AFD isn't cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep no valid rationale given. JuJube (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (not elligible for speedy, though possibly it is for WP:SNOW) - Episode lists are standard spinout material for television series articles, with notability tightly associated with its parent article. Send that puppy out for a strong clean-up, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as an article about a business that contained no facial showing of notability; Emeraude looked, and found nothing on the web. The article itself was vague, evasive, and buzzwordy, and would have required a total rewrite if kept in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Septier Communication Ltd.

Septier Communication Ltd. (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spammy article about what seems to me a non-notable company and, indeed, the article makes no assertion of notability. Google search for "Septier Communication"-wikipedia produces 347 returns, but apart from the company's own website these all appear to be directory entries and the like with no third party etc sources. Article was created September 2007 with no development since, by an editor who has edited only this article, plus adding the company name to Positioning (telecommunications). Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - GaryECampbell (talk) 00:56, 3 July 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; notability is not asserted.. - Philippe 05:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Britchan

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

I think this article meets notability as described at WP:WEB. Rumoured Epistle (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. --76.252.188.220 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7(web). So tagged. Does not list any third-party sources nor could I find any in Google news archive search. Presumably the nominator left off the word "don't": I don't think this meets any of the criteria in WP:WEB. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

John Goossens

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

Contested PROD. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league/competition yet. The reason given for the contested PROD was that he played in a FIFA Youth World Tournament, however consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability --Jimbo^[online] 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and consensus regarding youth caps. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per accepted notability standards for athletes. Vickser (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per Number_57 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Athlete as he has not played in a fully professional league. Football is a professional sport so "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (as was claimed when the prod was removed) doesn't wash here nor is youth international football the highest level, that would be the senior international team. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted per author request and has been blanked as a courtesy. Acroterion _(talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen Moore

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Parul Sheth

Parul Sheth (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, 100 results on Google search. Highest ranking pages seem to be someone's LinkedIn and Facebook profiles (not the subject of this article). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete -- searching in Google India for one of her recent books brings up fewer than 10 hits. Anybody know offhand what the equivalent to Library Journal is over there?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete if the author does not show proof of notability. Only 82 g-hits on English Google if you exclude "wikipedia" from the search. I could not find any reliable sources that cover her substantially, and many sources I found seemed to be talking about different Parul Sheths. The award mentioned in the article is also likely to be non-notable since it had only two g-hits, neither of which cover the award substantially.--Samuel Tan 13:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

DeathBoy

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

Seemingly non-notable musician - doesn't seem to me to pass any WP:MUSIC criteria. Further explanation on talk page. What i thought was a fairly neutral {{notability}} was quickly removed by creator. Seeking consensus/opinion. tomasz. 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I removed the {{notability}} tag, as this article has already been debated for notability two years ago. I do not appreciate your insinuation of WP:OWN and a WP:COI on my part as being the article's creator. I just read the stuff, I didn't make this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, i clearly misread the history. i appreciate that you didn't create the article and that therefore the acronyms you infer as applying to you, don't. With regards to removing the tag, i don't think a debate two years ago necessarily casts anything in stone. After all, it could be that that one was wrong. tomasz. 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND, except maybe for having a song in a video game.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Meets 4, 5 & 10 of WP:BAND. The artist is certainly niche (UK Industrial), but we don't limit notability to artists that we listen to personally. They've released albums on an important label within their genre (Wasp Factory Records). They've played the major UK festival for that genre (Whitby Gothic Weekend) and also internationally in Canada. They've also had their work included on a major game soundtrack (Project Gotham Racing). They're also still active today, should anyone care to pitch "Not doing much recently" as a (bogus) reason for non-notability. Additionally they've also had Lee Chaos as a past member, who's so well-known in the UK Industrial scene that no-one even bothered to create a mere wiki page to describe him (if you cared, you'd already know). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Very very very weak keep Meets the spirit of WP:MUSIC by a millimeter in my opinion. This vote should be counted as a delete if no reliable sources appear by the end of the AfD, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources confer verifiability, not notability. There's GF discussion as to whether DeathBoy's clearly non-trivial notability is sufficient to count as being encyclopedically notable, but where's the problem in proving this? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't enough to simply claim notability, it has to be backed up by reliable sources. If no such sources exist, an encyclopedia article isn't possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, but what verification are you short of? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the album pages, Music to Crash Cars To and End of an Error, have in their review lists reviews by some music magazines and individuals that Wikipedia counts as notable. So if we take notable magazines as reliable sources, DeathBoy has had pretty significant media coverage. Xmoogle (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This same issue came up in 2006. Those interested might care to look at the talk page Talk:DeathBoy#2006 notability debate Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Rather notable musician in some circles, released by both Wasp Factory Recordings and Line Out Records, used in a video game, talked about by Mick Mercer quite a bit in his online magazines... etc etc etc. Xmoogle (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I'd have to agree with the comments above. The genre doesn't lend itself to mainstream media coverage, but they've played notable festivals (such as WGW) and seem to be notable within that genre. --Mrph (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Very notable in the genre, out side have made into games and the press. Hopefully this discussion will prompt someone to update the article and add citations to Metal Hammer etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatgonzo (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• strong keep - while a niche artist that doesn't mean we should get rid of them. Deathboy is quite well known in a lot of bloging circles due to the lead singers LiveJournal, and several mentions of their work by Warren Ellis. Add to that the PGR3 and other game appearances I'd say they meet the notable requirement - probably not by much, but enough that I'm surprised that the article was even nominated DarkCryst (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to have third party references for the band and their albums (on that point, I note that each of their albums have their own article, and no one seems to have a problem with that?). Mdwh (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyleft patent

Copyleft patent (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Given that i quite liked the idea, i actually went through almost a hundred pages of apparent information on this topic, however, except for the mirrors of this very article, a brief mention on a Slashdot comment [20], which i am pretty sure only accidently brought the term patent inbetween the better known term "copyleft license", there is no notable or reliable mention of this anywhere that i can think to look. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I just Googled the term and couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:N. I'll change my mind if anyone posts such sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - same problem with Google. No evidence that concept is becoming more popular -- if it did anywhere, it would be online to find.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. I, too, think it's a good idea, but you can't use wikipedia to create notability (which is what I'm surmising). I'd change my mind in a heartbeat should somebody uncover some hidden trove of off-line, printed sources buttressing notability. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect This is covered in the more general copyleft article, and does not need its own. At best this merits a paragraph in the general copyleft article. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The source provided by Naurmacil isn't enough on its own to show notability. Perhaps when the song comes out notability will be able to be established.Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold My Hand (2008 song)

Hold My Hand (2008 song) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DELETE - This is a leaked song, we have no idea if it will even be released, whether it will appear on Akons or Jackson's album. It is not 100% proven that those are indeed Jackson's vocals. Not notable enough yet. Nice song though. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs: the subject of the article is not notable because it has not been ranked on national or significant music charts, has not won significant awards or honors and has not been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. This article does not have enough verifiable material to ever grow past a stub. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per both arguments above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and possible astroturfing WP:ADVERT. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect to Akon, the fact that MTV have reported on the leak makes it worthy of mention, although for sure it should not be a stand-alone article. --Stormie (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The song must be true and not false because on the youtube website it clearly states the video has been taken down do to an issue with copyright of Sony/ATV and which akons publishing's are licensed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymike07 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • WRONG - You added that to the article but you didn't provide a source to back up that claim so I removed it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Billboard Magazine just wrote an article[21] about the song. This 1. Confirms the song to be very true, and will be released for the next Akon album, 2. Gives the song notability, having been covered by one of the top music magazines. Suggest above comments be ignored as their concerns are addressed with this new article. Also suggest Realist2 to be patient and wait for one or two days before nomination of deletion next time, as it usually takes a few days for the full facts to be known as in this case. Naurmacil (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that just being a Webby "honoree" (not a winner, as one contributor seems to assume) doesn't quite cut it.  Sandstein  21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dylan's Couch

Dylan's Couch (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn podcast, already speedied many times Mayalld (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I declined the speedy because there was a clear assertion of notability, his show won "Official Honoree" in both the viral and comedy: long form or series Categories at the 12th Annual Webby Awards[1]. It's verifiable in a number of sources. It was speedied four times in three days, almost eighteen months ago and before he won the Webby. More info on the win. Doesn't mean it has to be automatically speedied now. The creator requested and was granted unprotection. Whether it's a keep or not, I'm not sure. I'm still looking into it. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment To clarify, winning an actual Webby and being an "Official Honoree" of their organization are very different. In their words: "Of the more than 8000 entries submitted to the 12th Annual Webby Awards, fewer than 15% were distinguished as an Official Honoree." So a reasonable estimate would be 1000 sites a year getting the tag; so, my good faith question is whether standing practice allows any recognition by the Webby Awards folks clears the "award" bullet of WP:WEB? I can see both sides of that one, and candidly I don't know the policy in that level of detail. Townlake (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The website (for the Webby awards) shows Dylan's Couch was one of twelve honorees in Comedy: Long form or Series and one of eight in the Viral category. Dylan's Couch is listed along with the Onion News Network and Clark and Michael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypergeek14 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I don't really know the difference. I still think it was enough to evade a speedy. I just asked the creator if he's aware of any RS coverage with which to expand the article. I know press releases aren't valid RSes but this one has attributed quotes as to the reasons behind its selection so I'm hoping to find something. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Good luck - I couldn't find any RSes on a cursory check, but I'm certainly rooting for you (or someone) to dig some up. Townlake (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Won't be me, unfortunately, I'm headed offline and out of town for the balance of this AfD so I won't be able to work on the article. Hope that someone will find them if they exist. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Admittedly, this has yet to pass WP:RS. But the Webby Awards carry a lot of clout and being acknowledged by their judges (even as an "honoree") gives this podcast more cred than it might otherwise deserve. It's a very, very close call, but I would rather give young Dylan a break. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. With the webby honorable mention, that might cross the line. Not sure, but good enough for me. Good luck. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Being an "Official Honoree" to an Award, even an award that has some notable attention, doesn't immediately make the subject of the reward Notable. Even if it did, a Webby Award, is hardly a well known award in itself and definetly doesn't have even the basic coverage to promote Award winners into Notability. Note that the Webby Awards promote non-notable nominations, and even there most well known entries are only well known in terms a segment of the Web, which, however much we as members of it would love to believe is massive, doesn't immediately promote it's locally recognised figures to immediate real notability. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I am sorry to contradict the previous commentator, but the Webby Awards are extremely notable: [22] and [23]. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not contradicting me, so don't worry about it. Infact i believe i even said that this article was not notable despite the Notability of the Webby Awards. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Lest we get distracted, this site did not win a Webby Award. Townlake (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article could use some more RS, but it is verified that this won a Webby, a very important feat. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{citation needed} 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please see above. This site did NOT win a WEBBY award. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Firstly, how is that an "important feat"? It's neither important, nor a feat, so i fail to see how combining the words creates a fact. Secondly, it has not won a Webby. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Agreed, the site was an "honoree" and not a "winner." Which, quite frankly, is still no mean feat -- particularly for a small-scale operation like Dylan's Couch. The Webbys get a ton of entries for award consideration (and a lot of these entries come with a heavy marketing push, not unlike the Oscars or other awards). The fact this young man's independently-produced offering rose to the near-top is something that I find very impressive. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I despair of the extent of policy creep that is evident here. The requirements for notability are clear. You either have to win an award, or be nominated and not win several times. This quite simply doesn't meet the requirements Mayalld (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Zero reliable sources discuss Dylan's Couch (unless someone found some?), and zero bullets of WP:WEB are satisfied as an alternative. "Official Honoree" is a type of recognition that young Dylan should be proud of, but it simply isn't a well-known award, and the fundamental criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia aren't otherwise satisfied. Townlake (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Lacking in notability and reliable sources. Captain panda 13:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Country

Dragon Country (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) - Williams is notable, this collection is not. The same user created these, and they all relate to New Directions, a publishing company. I think they are articles masquerading as ads. AW (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same user created them for the same reason:

The Theatre of Tennessee Williams, Volume VI (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Theatre of Tennessee Williams, Volume VII (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mister Paradise and Other One-Act Plays (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all. The plays are notable, the collections thereof not, unless proven that the collection was culturally significant for some reason.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all I've no objection to a merge to a "lesser-know works of TW" or some such. I only searched for the first one posted (easiest to search) and found a lot.

• http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=145&section=notes
• http://www.eforcity.com/032031270695.html
• http://books.google.com/books?id=8jVaAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Dragon+Country%22&dq=%22Dragon+Country%22&lr=&ei=215uSJCeIafqswOypIWUDw&pgis=1
• http://books.google.com/books?lr=&ei=nV5uSKr6O5LAsQPKw-21Bg&q=%22Dragon+Country%22+Tennesse+Williams&btnG=Search+Books
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?lr=&ei=nV5uSKr6O5LAsQPKw-21Bg&q=%22Dragon%20Country%22%20Tennesse%20Williams&sa=N&tab=ps

For the record, the author of this is generally viewed as one of the greatest playwrights every produced by the USA. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that Williams is highly notable, and if there's a play by that title, it would be notable as well. However, this article is about a particular edition of his collected plays, which is why I !voted to delete all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• And that collection is cited in scads of books and papers, making it notable IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's not though, those links you provided mention the play "Dragon Country," not this anthology, "Dragon Country: a book of one act plays." And anyway, some random bibliographical mentions aren't enough. --AW (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. There is no one-act play by that name. See One act plays by Tennessee Williams. Two of the plays from the collection have been paired and produced as a DVD with the name "Dragon Country". [24], and that recording has 16,000 Ghits [25]. At the least the movie is notable, but I'd say the collection is too. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge the anthologies They're nothing more than a list of what plays are in them; Williams is notable enough for there to be a list, but it shouldn't be spread out over multiple articles. DGG (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about that. There was a production of the whole set of them (available on VHS), and lots of references. But I agree that merging the anthologies into one article is okay for now given how short the articles are presently. But it would be easy to write entire articles about most of his plays. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to indicate that this book is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with those listed above? Hobit (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to a bibliographical list, per DGG.  Sandstein  07:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as WP:OR essay.  Sandstein  16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's categories

Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's categories (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as unnecessary WP:FORK from Category (Kant) Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The information presented goes well beyond what's contained in Category (Kant), and could not be merged into it without either undue weight issues or loss of information. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete because if we had articles on every philosopher's criticism of every other philosopher, Wikipedia would just become a loose mishmash. Should we have separate articles on Hegel's criticism of Kant, Marx's criticism of Hegel, Marx's criticism of Feuerbach, Feuerbach's criticism of Hegel, Marcuse's criticism of Sartre, Adorno's criticims of Husserl, Husserl's criticism of psychologism, Freud's criticism of prior dream theories, Jung's criticism of Freud? This would be crazy. And it would be in contradiction to the nature of an encyclopedia, at least not a general encyclopedia, although a case might be made for it in a highly specialized philosophy encyclopedia. For me the issue isn't about this article in particular, but about the general issue: we need a policy and set of criteria on this with regard to the Wikipedia philosophy domain, and perhaps also social thought. It seems to me that the general policy should be:1) the essence of anything that is an important criticism in the history of thought of one thinker by another should be included in capsule form, i.e. in at most one paragraph, under the article of the thinker being criticized, if it shaped subsequent thought; 2) it should also be included in capsule form in the article about the thinker doing the criticizing if that criticism was important in the development of that thinker's own thought, as was the case with Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant, Marx's of Hegel, Jung's of Freud, and so on; 3) anything over and above that should belong in references or links to specialized scholarly literature on that specialized topic. That's why there is scholarly literature and libraries. Wikipedia can't encompass the totality of scholarly literature and libraries, it's just an encyclopedia. Part of the point of an encyclopedia is to give the reader a general short introduction to a subject and encourage them to follow up any more specialized interest through appropriate references. That's the way all good encyclopedias operate. Any editor who is so impassioned about one philosopher's criticism of another should be submitting a paper about it to a philosophy journal -- Wikipedia can't be a cheap, easy alternative to the labor of submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. By the way, I happen to think that the same goes for the proliferation on Wikipedia of individual articles about all of the individual works by individual philosophers. For any major thinker, there are only a few works that deserve specialized articles in a general encyclopedia. For example, in the case of Kant, it makes sense for the three Critiques and a few other works; but it doesn't make sense for every individual thing Kant wrote, especially in his pre-critical period. Even philosophy encyclopedias don't have such things. Again, that's where one goes to a library to peruse scholarly literature about Kant. Same for other thinkers. I have several books on Kant which devote short sections to some of Kant's pre-critical writings, and that's appropriate. But Wikipedia is not a scholarly study of Kant or of any other thinker. And, by the way, something similar is happening in some Wikipedia philosophy articles with regard to references, i.e. people are just inserting books that they happen to like or have read or been influenced by, and we're ending up with unwieldy bibliographies that would be useless to a general reader, because he or she wouldn't even know how to choose among all of these references. An encyclopedia bibliography should be a short list of major classic and recent works that a reader could go to to learn more and to find out about more specialized literature if they're interested. I just did a quick scan, and at this moment there are 66 books listed in the Kant reference section. Because Kant is one of the major philosophers, it is understandable that there should be a substantial number of references. But I doubt if more than two dozen are appropriate in a general encyclopedia article. So I'm in favor of deleting this article in the context of the need for a Wikipedia policy or norm about all such articles. Jjshapiro (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - article would appear to run afoul of WP:SYN (maybe). (Is Jjshapiro's rationale longer than the original article? :-) )--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - This is not an encyclopedia article but an essay. As it stands now it is entirely original research and contrary to the guidance at WP:OR. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Eh, it appears to be more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, OR essay. Apropos of nothing, however, I strongly disagree with Jjshapiro's notion that appropriately sourced and well-written articles on philosophers' opinions of other philosophers are undesirable in a general encyclopedia of the type Wikipedia aspires to be. Ford MF (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic topic. Philosophy is huge and through the years wikipedia's articles can and will grow. The article looks legit. It's not a hoax, right? Schopenhauer really did criticize Kant's categories? As long as that's not in dispute, good faith makes me say keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. All material has been merged. (Note: if and when there is enough to split out, should be named Stone Gods discography.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Discography Stone Gods

Discography Stone Gods (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deeply unnecessary discography article for a band who've just released (er... well... nearly anyway...) their debut album. Even if they had released it, one album nowhere near justifies a discography in my view. tomasz. 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. One album, and one EP is not enough for an article --T-rex 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge back into Stone Gods. The band is plenty notable but there isn't enough material for a seperate discography yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Yeh, sorry, forgot to point out in my original nom that i redirected it to Stone Gods a couple of times but that the creator kept undoing this. Yours would also be my preferred course of action. tomasz. 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge as per Andrew Lenahan. Not enough material for separate discography. Silverfish (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Stone Gods, not enough content. Seems that the title would be an unlikely search term, but according to W guice, the creator of this article is prone to recreation and this title was chosen to circumvent a possible salting on "Stone Gods discography", so salt this one as well. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry, i fear i was unclear before: the user was simply reverting rather than recreating a deleted article. It occurred to me that if it stayed it should be moved to Stone Gods discography but i thought it would be appropriate just to use redirects. Cheers, tomasz. 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge as above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Alright, I'll merge it with the Stone Gods article as requested. The reason I restored it is because there was no information anymore about their discography because of the redirection . Sorry for any problems I may have caused by doing this. Mercury87 — Preceding comment was added at 19:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, nom withdrawn on confirmation of Emmy find. Sorry I've been offline or would have done so sooner. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Moormann Scharper

Sarah Moormann Scharper (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ignoring the apparent COI from the article's creator, there's scant evidence Scharper is notable. The Emmy would make her notable but with or without the middle name, I can't verify it from reliable sources. Can't verify any of the claims, the Bellarmine Players claim exists on wiki and bizarrely in a craigslist ad. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per not being able to verify Emmy (Emmy website search engine is blocked from linking here).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Keep per finding RS ref to Emmy win--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Pending further research. Had a bit of trouble searching for emmy too, and at first thought it was a hoax, but there's this - [26] backing up notability claims. Note the one "n" spelling Moorman there. Looks like her husband was notable too, cf Orbis Books.John Z (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Definite keeper. The NYT obit for her husband is not free, but if you search under "Sarah Scharper" at the NYT archive [27] you get another confirmation of their emmy.John Z (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per John Z's find of a ref to Emmy. --Crusio (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, since Emmy win has been verified by Jon Z's references. Nsk92 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The dates are a little difficult to believe, unless she has a time machine. Married in 1049, born in 1920, died in 1922, graduated in 1949, and then received an award in 1979? It's easy to guess that the marriage year should actually be 1949, but I have no idea about the death, and in any case reliable sourcing would be a good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're a real detail man, eh? Isn't it OR to cavil at these dates like that? I thought 1922 could be a typo for 1992 This confirms it. It appears the problem is that she was much better known as Sally Scharper. Many more ghits on "Sally Scharper" with quotes than "Sarah Scharper."John Z (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and keep for the Emmy. I just think a little cleanup and sourcing would be in order. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik Eghammar

Erik Eghammar (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not jumped in world cup, Most known for: A second place in swedish junior ski-jumping championchips 2007. AlwaysOnion (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:ATHLETE and per failing WP:N.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per above 2 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A young swedish skijumper that shorely will jump in world cup soon. But RIGHT NOW this article fails WP:ATHLETE and some other criterias. RapesnakeHURT (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Ring of Honor events

List of Ring of Honor events (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is not needed per the XFD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ECW events, WP is not a directory or a catalog. These ROH events are non notable, we cant list events that occur on consecutive days, that would be like listing every house show that WWE produces. SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions --SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. A list of these events does not constitute an article. All of the keeps in the last AfD were some variant of WP:ITSUSEFUL --T-rex 14:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as the nominator on the original, and because the last AfD has two legit deletes, two SPA keeps and one keep from Le Grand and so should have been relisted to generate a consensus rather than closed as keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- if this were tying together articles on the subject, it would be useful, but very few events are bluelinked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per my reasons in the previous AFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it should have been done the first time around for reasons established by this nom and the previous one. RFerreira (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the AfD of List of ECW events. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per precedent. Nikki311 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibet Society UK

Tibet Society UK (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is a promotion for an entity/group and all of the sources listed detail other events/ organizations/ news items, instead of the supporting the notability of the article's subject. TN‑X-Man 13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Sounds more like an advertisement/promotion for the Tibet Society, Wikipedia is not an advertising agency.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertising requests the audience/readership to subscribe or purchase some form of product, there is no such content in this article. I have now edited considerably and wish to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria - please be constructive in your criticism rather than just dismissing the article for deletion. Look at similar entries for NGOs, if this content is 'promotional' shouldn't most entries for organisations of this kind be deleted? Are there concrete guidelines as to what constitutes a promotion as opposed to a descriptive entry of what an organisation does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetsociety (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. Most advertising simply raises awareness. When was the last poster for Levi's you saw that noted the price or offered a specific contract for purchase? Specifically on wikipedia, something is considered propotion or advertising if the bulk of the content on the page either points to or praises an organization or person and the only sources are from that organization or person. Even if the tone is neutral, if the only sources are press releases and the like, it is an inappropriate use of the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete BBC mention is trivial. Notability isn't asserted. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete My first reaction upon reading the article was "They've (supposedly) been around for 50 years and that's all they've done?!" Googling seems to confirm non-notability. Their two major campaigns as stated in the article, "Support Tibet Not Terror" scores 10 Google hits and "Bring Tibet to the Olympics" scores