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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted material) by Gwen Gale. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nnenna Agba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shurara Corps. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article can simply be merge with the List of minor characters in Keroro Gunsou, as well as the other Shurara Corps. Members Chaoshi (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - and note that merging does not require an AFD discussion and this should not have been nominated. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amin ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax,I can't find any sources confirming that anyone with that name or a name even vaguely like that name is in the movie. Guest9999 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as lacks verifiability. Could well be a hoax. Nothing about this supposed actor at imdb entry for this in-production movie. No reliable third party sources as regards claims made in article. Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX and zero WP:V Artene50 (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Though I don't think it's a hoax per se, the subject doesn't seem to be notable and there's nothing currently verifiable. (My guess: This is someone's first credited role, verifiable when more info becomes available, but no current info indicates the role is anything but minor.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willing Hearts Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable local film production company, has spawned 6 other articles on its nonnotable principals and films (listed below). No independent sources sufficiently demonstrating notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also including:
  • Ric White
  • Linda Thornton
  • Nashville Travel Video
  • The Bell Witch Haunting
  • Nightmares from the Mind of Poe
  • Cask of amontillado film
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-receives only about 5 accurate 5 Ghits, [1], fails WP:N, and WP:VERIFY.SRX^--LatinoHeat 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SRX Summed it up. Any production company worth writing about should have at least one reliable secondary source to start an article off with. Halifax Nomad (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep signfificant sourcing has been found and there was no proposal for deletion. Merging discussions need to take place on the articles' talk page. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice and Men in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just a cluttered trivial dumping ground. Relevant contents belong in the Of Mice and Men article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 23:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I discovered this AfD when I came to merge notable content back into Of Mice and Men. Now that I'm looking at the article tho, there won't be much content to merge, just that "tell me again about the rabbits" and the archetypes of the two characters are frequently referenced. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, there will be more when people have a chance to work on it. I think that for notable works, the default should not be to merge the content. what the nom thinks to be trivia is actually cultural influences, and the use of the theme subsequently is perhaps as ultimately important as the work itself. DGG (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a perfectly good "pop culture" article. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In less than 20 minutes, I've found 5 cites and added them. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In less than 25 more minutes, I've found many more references, from blogs to the New York Times. Please, can another sysop lay this AfD to rest? Bearian (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Definitely notable per Bearian. Snowball is on it's way.... D.M.N. (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drink me magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability established. At this point, notability would be almost impossible to establish, as the magazine's first issue isn't due out until August. Since it's not yet released, this article is almost certainly created by someone closely connected to the magazine, which leads to concerns of conflict of interest and using Wikipedia for advertising. The article also violates Wikipedia's policy regarding crystal ball information. While it may warrant an article in the future, if it becomes a successful and notable magazine, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion at this time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to nominate it myself (when I found a {prod} tag had already been removed), as it fails both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Shawisland (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely WP:COI, it fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ADVERT, possible use of Wikipedia as their free web host. It also fails WP:N as well. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL, and if it gets more notability in the future, it can be recreated, but now it does not.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 00:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Artene50 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not claim to be notable --T-rex 02:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I prod-ed it, and I still think it should be deleted. My rationale on the PROD still holds true here. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Save Although it look slike this magazine doesnt exisit, i did a little research and found out that as an organization, it already exists. They seemed to through some launch party in California and it looks like the have a large following on facebook and within the San Francisco night life. Although perhaps a little premature, it seems to me to be a formidable and worthy entry.randorambo — randorambo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That doesn't meet WP:N. A "following on facebook"? The launch party in California does nothing for its notability. Are there any reliable, independent sources? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all; however, allow recreation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-paid directors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced list, rife with speculation, and likely so incomplete as to make any rankings demonstrably inaccurate. I'm not against the idea of such a page, but unfortunately this current version fails enough policies and guidelines as to make its existence in this form undesirable. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on similar grounds:

List of highest-paid actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of highest-paid screenwriters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY wikipedia is not a place for loosely associated lists. The information is also impossible to verify and changes constantly. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Opinion there are definately significant problems with the articles as it is, most obviously the almost complete lack of sourcing (The fact that all the information pertains to living people making adequate sourcing all the more necessary). However the amount actors and directors are paid has probably been covered in reliable sources (like this one) and I think acceptable articles in the vein of List of highest-grossing films (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films) could probably be written. If no one can improve the articles so that they meet our standards of verifiability and no original research I think they should be deleted with no prejudice against recreating once all the information has been reliably sourced. Guest9999 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - given the secrecy surrounding exact dollar amounts it is doubtful that proper sourcing is even possible. Also list serves very little purpose --T-rex 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Exact dollar amounts are not needed for this. It can be reliable enough. The limitations ofthe sourcing merely have to be given, since we are concerned with verifiability only, not truth. Collecting publicly available figures is not OR. DGG (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all 3 The problem is sources: there are none, and the information currently in these lists is not verifiable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Administrator Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Yet another developer trying to use Wikipedia as a billboard for their non-notable remote admin software. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable software that's only reference is to the authors site. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no claim of notability --T-rex 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy and delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulia (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when the shooting can be reliably sourced to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination on notability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL as the film is not even in production. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFF.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Article creator comment while the shooting of the film has not yet been started, it is almost certain that this film will come out eventually and its content/plot is already known. Halle Berry's pregnancy and its relation to the making of this film is also a notable story. Because racism/politics are involved, it will incite some considerable reaction. There is nothing wrong to prepare an article for such a film. Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, at this point it doesn't look as if the creation of this film is a sure thing --T-rex 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFF ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy Chimeric Glider, you can request that the article be userfied to your user space where it can be edited and copied back to article space once filming is confirmed by reliable sources. I know it doesn't seem to make sense to delete it since it'll probably get made, but that's policy's current threshold. Berry's pregnancy makes an interesting side note to the article, but it doesn't confer exceptional publicity and thus notability to the film before filming even begins. Toliar (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess the rule must be upheld, so I am going to put this in a user subpage and put it up when it meets the rule's criteria of inclusion. Regards. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. CitiCat ^♫ 14:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Herman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

None of these people have pages; no need for a dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn There are now two Steve Hermans that have pages. Good enough for me. As others have !voted delete, I can't withdraw, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The links are a guy who played on gig with a band, a red link, and an outside like to a kid's personal website nothing notable about any of them. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC) KEEP now that its an appropriate dab LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All three NN (although the guy who played guitar for Crass for one solitary gig at least comes close) and none of them have pages (and the last one is a likely WP:COI and an WP:ADVERT) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, OK, there's now two people with this name with articles, therefore the dab page is reasonable now. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Double edit conflict delete (seriously) per Legotech and Doc Strange. There are no pages to disambiguate, and the names listed are spam. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that edit conflict. I'm a perfectionist and constantly change my grammar if it doesn't make sense. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Crass. The one-gig guitarist doesn't meet WP:BIO, but may merit a redirect, as it was before another editor made it a dab for the lawyer, whose page wasn't created. Toliar (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep per Geo Swan's addition of the EPA administrator and I added a Voice of America bureau chief, often credited as Steve Herman. Toliar (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I am concerned that this nomination is based on a misunderstanding of policy. Multiple Steve Hermans exist, and should be disambiguated, without regard to whether they have articles or not. Deleting this article will only create more work for the next person to work on an article on a Steve Herman. We don't excise an entry in a disambiguation page because it is a redlink, if one or more articles shares that redlink. Similarly, we shouldn't delete this disambiguation. Geo Swan (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, any future merge is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Vista Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. Fails to cite sources. It's just not notable. Delete GreenJoe 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another non-notable school. Axl (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see any good reason to delete this page. The school has been involved in a notable and newsworthy fundraising effort and it is fully sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable school 19:03, 17 June 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.68.55 (talk) — 84.64.68.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Of note, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." While I commend the school for their effort, in the context of Wikipedia, this fund-raising is trivial. Axl (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to school district, sources don't establish notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Fee Fi Foe Fum and ample precedent. Also when the merge(s) are done, rewrite the the template to kill all of those links which lead to non notable articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per above. --JForget 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it may be "just not notable" but it also isn't getting deleted. Merge per the above, schools really need to stop being brought to AfD _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Clearly a merge and redirect are thought best, though where to merge and redirect to is less clear. Any such action is really an editorial decision. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Fails to cite sources. It's just not notable. First nom. Delete GreenJoe 20:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and/or redirect to appropriate school district, as per the common outcome. Most Middle school- and Elementary-related articles go through this process shortly after an AfD. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above; no evidence of individual notability for this school. JJL (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of English public schools in Ottawa per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above. Elementary and middle schools usually are not notable, and this school doesn't seem to assert any further notability. DigitalC (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge/redirect per above. --JForget 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, no district found. Wizardman 12:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template at the bottom of the article indicates that this school is part of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.--JForget 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I judged by the strength of the arguments, not the number tally - Colonel Warden gave evidence of multiple reliable secondary sources; while some seem to be expired, the Wired News, Los Angeles Times, and the Spanish Source (though I'm unsure about the latter, however it's not important since the first two are enough) are more than enough. This article does need a serious cleanup, however. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This articles asserts no notability through reliable sources, has every tag imaginable on it because of this, and has no capacity to improve since there are no reliable sources to add to it. Therefore, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The assertion that reliable sources do not exist for this topic seems to be false. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as someone not familiar with the topic, I can see zero claim of notability. In fact I can't even figure out what the article is attempting to talk about. Also zero independent sources --T-rex 02:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability, one non-reliable reference to a Bioncle wiki, and far, far too much in-universe detail. --Thetrick (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely in-universe plot summary with no real-world context. Nothing to indicate notability. Doubtful that this topic specifically has ever received substantial coverage from independent sources. Sources provided in Warden's link do not appear to be about the people themselves, but more about merchandise and the franchise itself. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per CW. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a Google news search would indicate that sources do exist to improve the article -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability, no proper sources for out-of-universe context, no demonstration of encyclopedic value. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks reliable sources to verify that the information isn't original research (which is predominantly seems to be) or that it adheres to WP:NPOV. There seems to be only one viable source applicable to the subject from those which were pointed out above, which is used already in the main article where coverage is slightly better. The subject fails WP:NOTE by not containing multiple secondary sources, and as such is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Musical performer whose notability is not easily confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability guidelines for music WP:NM. Not easy to verify notability as music is in language other than English. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be good at self-promotion, thus lots of G-hits, but only 1 non-self-released record.
• Delete. Lacks reliable sources to verify that the albums have even been released. The subject fails the relevant notability guideline (WP:MUSIC) and as such, is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not speedying or prodding due to that "the film won the best Horror picture genre feature film award at the international film and video festival in Los Angeles in 2007", but I'm not 100% convinced that this film even exists, let alone that it meets any notability requirement. I can't find any mentions of this award anywhere or a single mention of this film in anything approaching a reliable source (which IMDB is not, before anyone jumps in about that).  – iridescent 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, insufficient sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I found this which suggests it did win a minor award, and this from a German newspaper, I do not think it shows notability per WP:MOVIE. ascidian | talk-to-me 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Tan | 39 00:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Whitehead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the other AFD and the fact that she was notable for her pageant participation prior to competing on ANTM. Although she never won a state title, she held numerous local titles and has competed in the Miss Texas USA, Miss Texas Teen USA & Miss California USA pageants, placing many times. As User:Blnguyen phrased it well previously, her notability is "due to a sum of multiple events which were partially notable". PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merely competing for a state title is not notable. No matter how many times she may have tied and failed, that's no more notable than failing once--notable quire something that is actually notable--being less than notable as any number of things makes one--less than notable. To take a more common sequence, a non-notable athlete who becomes an non-notable college teacher and then a losing political candidate remains non-notable, no matter how many professions he does not achieve success in. Otherwise anyone who kept shifting jobs would eventually become notable, even if we couldn't say at precisely what. DGG (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep numerous pageant wins and guest-stints. Got media coverage for being the first contestant to quit ANTM Siemgi 23:13 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete If she had won the Miss Texas 2005 crown, I would have voted to keep it. No notability beyond winning the Miss Corpus Christi crown. Artene50 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there--had she won that title, I doubt it would even have been nominated for AfD. DGG (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - per Artene50 --T-rex 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete ukexpat (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nomination actually is about ANTM. To me the fact that she has done ANTM + several pageants + several guest appearances = notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, she's just like Brittany, probably a little more notable due to her pageantry past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak Delete: Although both Top Model and pageants are notable...she hasn't won or placed high enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the last AfD had a keep result, I don't see how she could ahve lost notability since. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:07 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• — Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- the multiple borderline events add up to notability. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Too long, not objectively written (too much space devoted to pageant minutiae and her hair), but meets notability requirements. - Richfife (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per near unanimity of responses, discounting nominator, IP addresses and possible socks. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Stolz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot support this nomination since you called her an 'also-ran', which is strongly unadvised in nominations since we try to keep a neutral view of things. But also, Kim has been one of the few Top Model contestants to go beyond her fame from that show, and get a good gig on MTV/MTVU as a correspondent and also a strong supporter and good spokesperson for gay rights in the media. Beyond the fansite mentions the article has plenty of sources and I'm sure more can be found. Nate • (chatter) 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I don't know if such a thing exists but I saw some people use weak keeps and stuff and that's how I feel. She has been on numerous civers as a gay right spokesperson, has had some significant work for MTV. Siemgi 23:18 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep her MTV stuff alone should be enough and she has done more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, you lost me there. She's one of the, I don't know, about ten contestants who have successfully turned their ANTM stint into an opening to the TV world, she's really a keep to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. In the previous group AfD, I noted that she was one of the few that parlayed her experience into something bigger. She's an MTV personality now, and that's good enough for me. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per SKS2K6 User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:10 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• — Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As someone with such a large, widely-publicized presence on MTV (VJ, show host, news correspondent) and active presence in LGBT media, Kim clearly does not fail any of the notability guidelines the nominator specified. I feel the previously-edited article, however, did a somewhat poor job establishing notability criteria, so I tried to clean this article up (especially the intro). Hope this helps other voters. Dark clear obsession (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being an MTV personality looks sufficiently enough to be notable and also there is a few good sources as well. --JForget 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Procious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not obvious with this biographical entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An interesting case with many hits usually from secondary sources. But she is apparently legitimate. I can't vouch for her notability, though. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She worked for a newspaper, so obviously her name will pop up all over Google. However, for notability purposes, we must see if she has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. A good place to turn for that would be GoogleNews where her lack of coverage is manifest. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable as artist, scraping the bottom of notablity as editorial cartoonist (finalist for an award).

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, defaulting to keep. Even after discounting the suspected sock/meatpuppets, there seems to be a roughly 50/50 split over whether the existing secondary coverage is sufficient enough to establish notability, with policy-based arguments being made on both sides. --jonny-mt 04:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa D'Amato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Getting media coverage (AOL, Perz Hilton), a few guest-stints, starting a music career... Siemgi 23:15 14 June 2008 (UTC).
• Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Granted, she's had her 15 minutes of fame and is soon to be forgotten; but she's spawned enough interest to warrant secondary sources, and who knows what importance she might play as part of some sociology geek's pop culture thesis years from now. Halifax Nomad (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete starting a career is not notable--when she establishes one,then it will be time for an article. anything, whether notable or not, might eventually become notable when used for academic study--then it gets an article. Wikipedia filters the internet, not reproduces it. DGG (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perez Hilton is a site about celebrities, right? the fact that she was on it proves she's kinda notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's got some notability outside ANTM, that's pretty much confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak delete: I know she's had coverage outside of the ANTM blogs/sites, but I don't think acting stupid in the public eye. It would be different if it was something so huge that it got significant mainstream coverage. At this point, she does have some pop culture visibility, but not enough to warrant her inclusion into Wikipedia. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, same as Whitehead, her last AfD was a keep. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:09 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• — Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. This is very notable, verifiable, and its not blatant advertising. — _Maggot^Syn 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptic Curve DSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 18:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep its a long way over my head - but it seems to be a theory rather than a product and notable [2] - external links might need checking but I can't see how the article itself is advertising. -Hunting dog (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep ECDSA is one of three algorithms included in NISTs digital signature standard. 85.1.107.231 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It cannot be advertising because the subject of the article is neither a company nor a product. The article is about a standard. If a particular item in the article is linkspam, it should just be removed and not brought to AfD. Jim Miller (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep How can theories be "blatant advertising"? As Jim Miller Jr. said, an innapropriate external link or two is not cause for an AfD. Just be bold and remove it. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong/speedy keep. I don't know if this is a bad faith nomination or just misunderstanding on the part of the nominator, but it's obviously notable, and it isn't spam because that just wouldn't make sense; how can you spam an encryption standard? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, the term should be familiar to anyone who has studied crypto recently. WillOakland (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable religious leader with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is a Swami with an Ashram who founded health camps for poor people notable? And I agree with ism Schism's claim on reliable sources. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eros-Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable Russian film studio. Declined prod(!). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It may be unremarkable for America with its monstrous porn industry, but searching google for russian terms for Эрос-Фильм and Армен Оганезов shows a reasonable number of hits besides film ads. Unfortunately the only things I can contribute from Russian sources is cut and paste cyrillic spellings of names. And by the way, I also noticed that the list of films produced is quite long. If you wish, I can cut and paste this list (untranslated) into the article as well, countering systemic bias in wikipedia :-) Mukadderat (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete film-house with some 40-odd film catalogue specialised in girls who lie back and think of Russia may sound notable, but isn't. Article is feeble on independent sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Shrug>. What can I say? Only that Russian wikipedians are not so obsessed with national sex industry, unlike, say, american porn proliferating in wikipedia. Just the same I doubt that girls that lie back and thing of America are of higher notability, but abound in wikipedia. Like I said, there are refs in Russian language, but I cannot add them because I cannot read. Mukadderat (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This film company fails WP:CORP. The author's point about systemic bias is well taken, but the author has not offered WP:RELIABLE 3rd-party sources in any language. Even with systemic bias, WP:PROVEIT applies. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I checked, and it fails WP:CORP, as Gene93k said. It has not been covered by secondary sources, and the only external links are the company's website, their film catalogue, and a brief entry at iMDB. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:N at present. Artene50 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep no longer speedy because it was nominated on the 8th and seems to have fallen through the cracks but keep nonetheless. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dunford Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At the moment, this article is pure advertorial. Its subject appears to meet the notability criteria, and the article is not quite blatant enough for {{db-spam}} treatment, but it needs a substantial rewrite before it can meet the WP:NPOV and WP:V criteria. I'm listing it here in the hope that the original contributor, or someone else who cares deeply enough about the article's subject, will perform the necessary rewrite before this AfD expires. I've left them some hints on their talk page as to how they might improve the article. The Anome (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. --Blechnic (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. May also be an autobiography. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons the nom gave. If the subject is notable, it should stay. Cleanup and rewrite are editing issues, not a reason for AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Weak keep. I've added a couple of sources to the article, but this was all I could find in a gsearch. A gnews search turns up a few more that have some promise, but they are pay sites. UK newspapers might have more info, but I have no clue how to access them easily.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unless sourced. 10 days totally should be long enough to find some references. The accomplishment claimed might possibly be notable, but we'd need to see what the sources said about them. DGG (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It is written in an advertorial style, as The Anome said, but it seems that after a lengthy rewrite, it could possibly be notable. I could go either way. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup. If the nominator wants the article rewritten then they should do it themselves. Reducing an article to a stub is easier than AFD so there is no excuse for this disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references now in the article are reviews of his work in major newspapers and confirmation that the restaurant where he is executive chef won a major award. That's plenty to show notability. There are still problems with the tone of the article but that is a reason for editing not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO, not the primary subject of multiple independent reliable sources. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Nominator admits this is a forced editing attempt, not a genuine AfD. He's a well known British television chef. This is another "you clean up this article at gunpoint" nomination, by an editor who's not capable of or willing to clean up the article themselves. Ask the folks at WP Food or something, but don't force clean ups of articles that you're not willing to clean up. If you're not, why should someone else want to? --Blechnic (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only was this an admittedly bad faith nom, but the article has now been cleaned up and sourced sufficiently. Jim Miller (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 04:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Like Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail notability guidelines at WP:MOVIE. Just under 600 total Google hits, no hits in the Google News archive, no evidence of coverage in reliable third-party sources. No evidence that film has been screened and it does not even have an IMDB entry. In sum, an independent film that is not notable enough to warrant an article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No third-party sources, no notability. Nothing. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This film is not a box-office or straight to video film but it is an independent film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyjuddfan (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:MOVIE. Doesn't even haave an iMDB page. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MOVIE: "The published works must be someone else writing about the film." The very few hits that exist are Myspace and its ilk (and the WP article).  Frank  |  talk  21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability guidelines. - Richfife (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oklahoma State University buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

there is already a listing of buildings in the article for Oklahoma State University. in addition, this page does not provide enough information; I have a feeling it might just be a list that was copied from somewhere. Scottmso (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As mentioned above, this list already exists on the main article. Furthermore, it is not sufficiently notable in itself to constitute an article (or list) of its own. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Keep and combine with Oklahoma State University–Stillwater#Campus buildings. We certainly don't need overlapping information in two places. This looks a more complete list than that in the main article including demolished buildings and buildings under construction, for example, and at least containing a small amount of sourcing. There are two ways forward. The first, is to merge this list into the main article. The second, and my preference, would be to move the list of buildings out of the main article and into here to make the main page less cluttered. Which solution is adopted is a matter for the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Listcruft, possibly a copyvio. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how can it be copyvio? Abstracting the material from their extensive web information isn't copyvio; if they do provide a simple list there, there's no copyright in this sort of a list--and if anyone thinks there is, all it takes is to reorganize it. DGG (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nom said that he/she had a 'feeling it was copied from somewhere". Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was copied 'from somewhere' it is most probably not copyvio. This is a purely factual list of buildings categorised by type and factual material is not copyright. TerriersFan (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list for most universities will be extensive enough that it requires a separate list--there will usually be two of three lines of information worth including for each. since we are usually deleting articles on most individual campus buildings, itr makes it reasonable to provide for them here. As O iderstand it, the proposed solution of Terriers Fan is a separate article (ie keep), not merge. DGG (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an orphaned article with no useful content. While it should be possible to verify the existence of these buildings that would not make them notable. --T-rex 01:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete context-free, source-free list. Pure directory. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge Oklahoma State University–Stillwater#Campus buildings into it per TerriersFan. While it is a standalone list, I would like to see more here than simply a list of buildings' names (as opposed to, say, Buildings at Marshall University). B.Wind (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure there's a link on the school's website that does a better job. We can point to it as needed. - Richfife (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge content from Oklahoma State University–Stillwater#Campus buildings per TerriersFan, that article is worsened by a third of it's length consisting of this bare list, what would be best of all would be a paragraph or two in there, with a "main article" link to List of Oklahoma State University buildings. --Stormie (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn see final comment below _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Walls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no assertion of notability for this album. Only content of the article is a "Track listing" and a "Personnel" sections. There's also an infobox with very little information. The page's been prodded, but prod was removed, so I've gone to AfD. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I have changed the page , but if you consider it for deleting it is up to everyone to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagor4e (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep seems to be a notable album by a notable band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem a notable album CRocka05 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The artist is apparently notable, why isn't the album? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've given the article a bit of a tidy up, added a ref for some of the info, and track listing. Over the next few days or so I'll give all the other albums of his that look this bad a bit of a kick in the pants too.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, now the article is way much better than before. I'm glad to say that I withdraw this nomination. Victor Lopes (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat Code Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has already been posted and deleted twice as spam. Bringing it here to get a decision as to whether it's cleanuppable and/or worthy of keeping. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hi. I was just wondering what changes need to be made to make it conform to the rules. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm just trying my best. I tried to follow this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamespot

Please, any help would be appreciated.

Regards,

MMCCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmccc (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamespot article contains 78 references to reliable sources to establish its notability. While this article certainly doesn't need as many as 78, it needs at least some to explain why other media think it's a noteworthy organisation. – iridescent 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try my best. However, I saw a great amount of those "references" are internal links. Should I do that as well and link to CheatCC reviews, previews, etc. or those links are not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmccc (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike links to the subject's own website but this is totally out of my area. Post a request at WikiProject Video games and someone will help you. You should probably mention this deletion discussion as they're the best people to comment on whether this article is viable. – iridescent 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral The lack of external sources troubles me, but it is the 3rd-most visited video gaming sight. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Alexa test is not an indicator of notability. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment replication of cheats elsewhere does not indicate notability. The interviews could be cited for the aritcles where they originate, but that too does not indicate notability. Unless the GameFAQs-Dave Allison flap was covered in a reliable publication, it's just an Internet skirmish that shouldn't be added. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but heavily edit. It doesn't need to be more than a few paragraphs in length. All the references need to be corrected too. Fin©™ 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spammy. Far too detailed. Reads like advert. Might merit a one-line mention in cheat codes. --Thetrick (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not keep after editing? If the goal is to make an encyclopedia, Cheat Code Central should be there, just as Gamespot and IGN are. Shouldn't it? Granted CCC is only half the size of those two, but it's still the third most visited out there, and the #1 choice for codes. Any kid between 10-18 who goes online and plays video games will know CCC. Of course, I know I'm not a neutral source to tell you this, but you could easily investigate the issue and find out...I think we were extremely neutral in the way everything is explained on the doc. Feel free to edit anything you want, shorten the document, etc. I tried to get rid of part of the initial content, but I'm not sure what you guys think is useless and what isn't. I used the Gamespot Wikipedia post as a reference to build this one. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Mmccc (talk)

• Rewrite article - Look, I'm not doubting that Cheat Code Central is notable per WP:N. If it gets the traffic the article says it does, then chances are there are sources that show notability out there. But the way the article is written now, it's written like an advertisement showing off the details of the site without really talking about why it is notable. This article needs to be completely rewritten, but should that happen, I think it could stay. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but cleanup, on the presumption that the references listed are good for showing the notability, but they need to be inline citations to match with the content (see WP:CITE and WP:CITET. --MASEM 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very well known website. DGG (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and could use a rewrite. When a video game cheat site is given a shout-out by the NYT, however brief, that's a pretty major deal. Ford MF (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is indeed a well known and well used website... needs work though. giggy _(:O) 11:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - SPAM article for a non-notable website written with COI. Please do not let this degrade into "I've heard of it, so it's notable". There is no establishment of notability. Notability is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability is not another website quoting a review, or a newspaper's website mentioning noting more than the URL of the website in an essay (under "Some sites with cheat codes"). Reliable secondary sources are not the official website, the website of their hired PR firm, blogs, or even (sorry) MySpace pages. Please attempt to establish real WP:Notability (not popularity or familiarity or whatever). JohnnyMrNinja 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but edit — If it is heavily trafficked as with GameFAQs et al, then it should be kept. However, I do concur that this article was written rather poorly and is in need of some extensive editing. MuZemike (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy question - First: does anyone argue that articles on subjects that are not notable should be kept? Second: can anyone provide proof of actual notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web)? I think this is vital to the discussion. If it is notable, it should be kept. If it is not notable, it should not. As far as I can tell, the article contains no valid references, just links to top-level domains, blogs and a MySpace page. This discussion has nothing to do with how popular it is, or how well the article is written (as it can always be edited). Can anyone actually prove that that the topic is worthy of inclusion by Wikipedia policies? If not, either it must be deleted, or Wikipedia:Notability (web) rewritten. JohnnyMrNinja 09:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soxred 93 13:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kinahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable local councillor and unsuccessful election candidate who fails WP:BIO. Google shows up nothing of note and just being someones son is not enough for notability. Valenciano (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - slightly unfair to nominate for AfD so soon after creation. Hopefully article will be improved. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't answer the concerns about the article. What exactly has he done to merit inclusion? There are many antiques experts and many members of borough councils, none of them meet wp:bio based on those factors. Valenciano (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to reply to everything comment made. Let's see what others think. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think he is of borderline notability, but there certainly has been coverage independent sources, the fact that the Antrim Times and other local papers aren't online simply makes him a WP:BIO failure on a google test. There is coverage of his work as an antiques consultant and other public appointments[3].Traditional unionist (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Did not get elected for the Northern ireland Assembly. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The council of which he is a member represents a population of only 50,000. Local government bodies of this size do not make the members notable.He lost the last election for MP. There's no real likelihood of finding additional material that would show notability. Coverage has to be significant. DGG (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable failed candidiate who did not win election. Other positions as an antiques consultant, etc. are not sufficient to pass WP:BIO. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - insufficient evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted G6, uncontroversial housekeeping. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Franklin (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Paul Franklin and Joseph Paul Franklin each have hatnotes pointing to the other, so a dab is not needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. But is both hatnotes point to each other, how did you ever find this page? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By checking what linked to Paul Franklin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One guy is Joseph Paul Franklin. There is only one Paul Franklin, making this disambiguation useless. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Shapiros10 and the nom on this one. Good find TPH. — _Maggot^Syn 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Kevin (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAW Local 1973 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG, non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a large union local. The article has over a dozen references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that may be technically true but most of those "references" are publications of CAW itself, so they aren't qualified as secondary sources as required by policy on reliable sources. I would add to the nominator that per the guide to deletion "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." Beeblbrox (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Canadian Auto Workers Per notability guidelines for organizations "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. " As mentioned above, there isn't really much in the way of reliable sources related to this chapter. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merger is inappropriate in this case because both articles are quite long. Since notability for the local (and for other locals) can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, it is best to maintain the separate articles. --Eastmain (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not need to be this long, as almost none of it based on reliable sources, and I don't believe it does meet the general notability guideline because of the lack of good sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of all CAW Local articles to a CAW Locals article would be better. This would prevent the CAW article from increasing in length. DigitalC (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nominator should first have done a Google News search - see http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22CAW+Local+1973%22&btnG=Search+News and a Google News archive search - http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22CAW+Local+1973%22&ie=UTF-8 Lots of references in both places. --Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The onus on adding in references, is the person putting in the material, not me. You should know that by now. GreenJoe 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that they are found, do you withdraw the nomination? DGG (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's still not notable. GreenJoe 23:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well guess what? this article is an important piece of history with the recent news of plant closures to both the Transmission plant and lear plant (both of which this local represents). CAW Local 1973 will no longer exist. To add: regarding the sources, CAW Local 1973 is not a large local and is in a small town, thus there are not an overwhelming amount of sources. as to the credibility or notability, the sources used were some quotes from the CAW President and founding members of the local (who would know better). There is only so much research one can find in books. The deletion of this article is a grave mistake as it is going down in CAW's history as a strong local that has done it's job in looking out for wroker's rights and employment. One day someone might say what was the local 1973? with its closure this local has become an integral part of the CAW's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamouva (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - there is no consensus to delete the article - interested editors can start discussion on whether to redirect the page (with or without a merge). (non-admin close) Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Munro Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails to cite sources, and it fails WP:ORG. It just isn't notable. Delete GreenJoe 17:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The school appears to have notable alumni, and to be named after a notable Canadian politician. --Eastmain (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to. It cites NO sources to back it up. GreenJoe 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Amazing how tagging something AfD causes references to appear out of the woodwork. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect into Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per the usual middle school procedure. We can't have an article on each middle school that was attended by someone with a Wikipedia bio. Notability is not inherited. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Although I disagree with it, there seems to be a consensus on Wiki to keep schools and since this has sources, I would say it's more notable than some at least. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The wiki consensus (I disagree with it as well) is to keep high schools, not middle schools. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but Bryan Adams and Tom Cruise are very notable alumni, and the consensus as I've seen it is that Middle schools CAN be notable. If this isn't, what is? Personally, as a recent changes patroller, I'd just as soon we eliminate or semi-protect every single school article. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no accepted policy or even guideline for school notability. If in your opinion this school isn't notable, don't be afraid to say so. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Changing to weak delete. Just because a school had notable alumni does not make the school notable as well. This goes back to the whole notability isn't inherited principle. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a notable sporting success, an unusual number of notable alumni and a further sources available (I'm about to add another) adds up to an encyclopaedic article. TerriersFan (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated comment - the article now has an unusual array, for a middle school, of sporting and academic success, backed up by ample independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to parent district article, a passing mention in a biography of Tom Cruise and a couple of blurbs in a local paper is not substantive independent sourcing, it is trivial mentions. Willing to reconsider if genuinely substantial sourcing exists, but there's nothing I can find. "Famous people went here" has no bearing whatsoever, sources confer notability on a subject, not having famous people affiliated with it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"passing mention" is a bit harsh. pages 13-16 discuss his days at the school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a passing mention because the focus is on discussing the person, not the school. The school is mentioned in passing to provide context, the person is the focus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is on the person but it is not a passing reference; it discusses his time at the school, his challenges at the school, his successes at the school, his teachers and classmates. It is currently only used as a cite for alumni but, still, you cannot say it's a passing reference when it occupies several pages in the book. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect per Seraphimblade & Brewcrewer. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see nothing encyclopedic about winning school district level athletic prizes, and nothing notable about having a passing association with celebrity. It's a middle school, I really don't think it and Tom Cruise left any lasting impressions on each other that serves to provide deeper insight in to the nature of one or the other. Notability is not inherited, the guy who cuts Bryan Adams's hair doesn't become a notable hairdresser by that fact alone, the guy that changes the oil in Elizabeth Manley's car doesn't become a notable mechanic. Really, this is just a totally typical middle school in a totally typical suburb. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The impression this school has left on Tom Cruise is clearly stated in his biography. To compare the impact a middle school has on the development of an individual with that of a hairdresser.. well I shall leave it to others to surmise my reaction! "this is just a totally typical middle school" ... really, then I must be wrong in advocating most middle school articles are redirected; please point out how which other middle schools has this combined range of awards and I'll happily write an article on them too! TerriersFan (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That he came of age in a middle school, and had friends at school as a teenager I don't doubt. Is this material, which you think makes the school notable going to be included on the school article? If the reason, explaining *why* the school had such an impact on Cruise, that is so important to Tom Cruise's biography that it raises the school to historic notability, isn't going to be in the article, then I don't see how it can make the school notable... Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per references added since nomination. Clearly passes WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the references added to the article just about establish notability. Davewild (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest that this article should be kept. It is certainly just a start but the school is noted and facts are verified by reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the celebrities that attended this school increase its notability beyond a regular middle school (see the reference labelling it "School to the stars"). I feel it meets WP:N. DigitalC (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Seraphimblade and Brewcrewer. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the addition of references since the start of this discussion. --JForget 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Break Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Vague assertions are made to "production deals" and such, but absolutely no references are provided. Google turns up maybe one or two relevant hits; add "Ashcroft" to the search terms and you get exactly one hit, aside from this article. This information cannot be verified and is highly suspect. Possible hoax, but probably just a non-notable musician looking for publicity. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability reliably sourced. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC with flying colors, No reliable sources, possible self bio and possible Use of Wikipedia as a social network . If deleted, redirect this back to Shawn Michaels, the television wrestler who goes by the name Heart Break Kid. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I note from the talk page of the article that the creator possibly did not understand the difference between asserting notability and proving it with reliable sources. If they can come up with sources, i.e. all the claimed coverage in magazines, I would change to keep. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability has not been established, no references, possibly a hoax. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Keep ... and much improved during the discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lior navok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Apart for possible notability issues, the original author, User:Liornavok, which I presume is the Lior navok in question, has claimed ownership of copyright over the text (possible implicit ownership of the article itself?) -- and that is incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lior navok has been moved to Lior Navok -- I presume this AfD discussion still applies? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep if he can reliably source the awards and fix the copyright issues, it's reasonably notable and worthwhile despite the admitted COI. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good improvements. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I dunno If the article's claims are true, we should certainly keep, but if the entire article is copyrighted, we have no choice but to delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look into this, the more it seems that he wrote this article for Wikipedia, then tried to put his own copyright on the Wikipedia page, in order to claim ownership. I think this may just be a huge misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, but probably isn't an actual copyright violation. I have warned the author about conflict of interest editing and I see the copyright issue is already under discussion on his and the article's talk pages. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Copyvio material has now been removed, and a new lead written. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent cites. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are independent citations now, but in any case that's hardly a reason to delete an article unless none can be found. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite - even if someone writes just 1 line, it's better than a copyvio. The subject is notable however, lots of independent sites mentioning him, a sufficient amount of accomplishment, and there are enough Google hits to clearly display that he isn't an average NN Joe. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. (The article is now reduced to one descriptive line + the list of his compostions.) I have added some refs - he is notable. In addition to the refs I've added to the article, see Google News Archives. [4] I have a subscription to Highbeam Research and can supply the articles that confirm his various awards. Most of them are from The Jerusalem Post. The autobiography bit was ill-advised, but that's no reason to delete the article. I suspect the addition of the copyright info in the edit summary was the author trying to say it was OK to use the info from his web site because he owned the copyright, not an attempt to claim ownership of the article. (He's obviously new to Wikipedia) Voceditenore (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've re-expanded the article slightly, this time with refs. Voceditenore (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As always, I'll be happy to provide the deleted content for anyone who wants to transwiki it to a more appropriate project. --jonny-mt 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27 True Runes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally in-universe trivial details about a game's elements. Any sign of real world notability? Ultra! 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE --T-rex 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — it's storyline material for a game, which has no reliable sources to establish it with any real notability. I'd say merging was probably an option, but I have no idea where or when and the sheer number of fair use images presents a serious obstacle. --Haemo (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Suikoden - The game information here can easily be reformatted and reinserted into the Suikoden series article. Since this article is basically a list of key in-universe story points and should be deleted, I'd need to say that other articles such as Characters of Final Fantasy V (and many other "Characters of Final Fantasy" articles or similar game universe lists) would fall under WP:GAMEGUIDE. As a side note, this page was created as per a cleanup suggestion. As for references, Suikosource may not be a major publication website, but it is in fact one of the few that cover and translate content from Konami's Japanese press releases and developer blogs. LanceHeart (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure plot summary. This article does not establish notability in secondary sources. --Phirazo 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Suikoden With a bit of work the information can be rewritten to fit into the Suikoden article, and what LanceHeart said. --Noctrine (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:VGSCOPE's presumption against lists of game items, and per WP:GNG since this article does not assert notability through multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Randomran (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT. Asserts no notability through non-trivial coverage by verifiable reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), and per WP:ITSCRUFT not being a valid reason for deletion. Also, thousands of people come here for it and there is clear editorial effort to improve it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 05:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Ali Shah Bukerai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable. Article is written by the subject. Very few reliable sources could be found. Obvious COI is present. It was prodded, and the subject removed it (in addition to removing the COI/Autobiography tags). CyberGhostface (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is indeed written by the subject or a relative of the subject here There are 32 hits on this topic but most sources don't seem to be independent reliable ones. Not enough WP:N. Artene50 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is not established.  Frank  |  talk  21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - originator and primary author User:Bukerai has been credited with edits only to this article. Serious WP:COI problem here; subject falls well short of WP:BIO as far as I can tell. B.Wind (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Harris (voice actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This voice actress has been the subject of a long-term hoax and I feel I need to clarify this somewhat. It has a link to her IMDB page which suggests itself to be impressive until you look at the articles with closer scrutiny. Many of the entries are improbable (credits are listed for Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting, in which the voices were synthesized), some are negligible even if true (Amy Rose never spoke in Sonic CD outside of a 'squeak' made when captured by Metal Sonic that could have easily been digitally generated), and others are downright impossible (Karin Kanzuki in Street Fighter Alpha 3 never spoke Engish). This hoax filmography seems to have been perpetrated by a crazed fan of hers (check out the message boards if you're curious, but only at your own risk). The few credits that I can confirm (she actually did voice Sophitia in "Soul Edge") lower her down to merely not a notable person. JuJube (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is why IMDB isn't a reliable source. Can't find anything in Google. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I too, am tired of seeing IMDB used as a source. L0b0t (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly NN ukexpat (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlyn Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Child actress that doesn't meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. Did not have multiple significant roles. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a large fan base, with multiple fan sites. She has appeared co-starring in The Happening, and having an important role in Crash. She will have a leading role in Universal Signs. I believe that meets the WP:ENTERTAINER standard. --staka (T ・C) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A large fan base might satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER but that claim would require the verification from some sort of reliable source. But appearing in one film and having one semi-important role in another doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Future film roles are violative of WP:CRYSTAL. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only one film, but many films, and in many television shows. Also, future film that has been completed and already has an official site doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL (it can be verified). --staka (T ・C) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did she have significant/important roles in multiple films or has she just appeared in multiple films? All I'm seeing is the latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I stated earlier that she has co-starred in The Happening as a significant role, and having an important role in Crash. She will have a one of the leading, and important roles in Universal Signs. Isn't that three films that she has a significant or important role in? --staka (T ・C) 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please forgive my slight incivility, but you're exaggerating her roles. She did not "co-star" in The Happening (2008 film), she had role. Neither did she have a significant role in Crash (film), she had a role. As for Universal Signs, there's no Wikipedia article on the film and her role in the film or the film's notability has yet to be established. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought she did co-star in The Happening but I guess not. She was one of the four main character in the film getting me to believe that she co-starred. As for the film Crash, critics say she was "the heart and soul" which seems she had a significant role, and she did conclude the racism in the film. Her biography on TV.com (reliable, I don't know) states that Universal Signs was a 2007 film, and has no Wikipedia article so I believe that isn't a notable film, sorry about that. So she sort of has one or two notable films (and one in unnotable film), so it does not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER.. --staka (T ・C) 17:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Assuming the IMDB entries aren't falsified, She's got plenty of appearances for her age, indicating an ongoing career and large potential for expansion. I can't see WP:ENTERTAINER intending this to be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "indicating an ongoing career and large potential for expansion" not only fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER it is also violative of WP:CRYSTAL. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I made three assertions, only the last of which is remotely WP:CRYSTAL--either of the other two are sufficient on their own: 1) She doesn't fail WP:ENTERTAINER--As I read it, it doesn't require multiple, significant roles. If that's what it's supposed to mean, it should say it. It says "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." From what IMDB says, she's certainly been featured multiple times in notable film and television shows. Full stop. Granted 'The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.' So, if anything contradicts her IMDB credits, they should be considred unreliable. I'm not seeing any assertion so far that those credits are inflated or erroneous, however. 2) In the absence of an impeachment of the IMDB record, her career to date is larger than what's in the article, satisfying WP:POTENTIAL simply by documenting the IMDB-referenced appearances, see also WP:DEMOLISH, and 3) in a longer term, there is FURTHER potential for growth--WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, since she already has plenty documented appearances; this just further reinforces my opinion that notability, while not temporary, can only increase with respect to this young actress. That is, I give her more benefit of the doubt as a living and working entertainer who has a demonstrated potential for future contributions, than I do for a dead entertainer whose contributions cannot possibly expand in the future. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to what I've added to the article, try these three reviews which specifically comment on Sanchez' acting ability. I'd encourage those advocating deletion to review the article and the additional sources, which I or anyone can add to the article as desired. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple appearances on notable television shows. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A "featured" role is one that could conceivably be nominated for a Supporting Actor award. None of these roles satisfy. — MusicMaker5376 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "featured role" does not appear in WP:ENTERTAINER. See my quotation above. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, a "featured" performance must be different than a "significant role" else the two clauses in WP:ENTERTAINER are simply saying the same thing. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and Speedy Keep Any editor who has been to the movies lately and seen M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening must realize that this article should exist, for she plays a key role throughout the movie. WP:ENTERTAINER has serious flaws if it somehow excludes her from having an article on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a really crappy movie that was, by the way...just a side note. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a subjective statement is completely irrelevant to this Afd. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See where I wrote, "just a side note"? --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria do you suggest applies to this afd?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a very good criteria that can be specified. But specifying it could be construed as uncivil towards the nominator. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know the nominator very well and I'm very sure he won't get insulted. In addition, if it truly fits under one of the criteria, incivility should not stand in the way of the correct application of Wikipedia's policies. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fly is just avoiding the fact that there is no such criterion. In fact, number one explicitly states, "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." However, someone else already argued for deletion. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It does not matter if she passes WP:BIO or WP:SOMEOTHERSUBNOTABILITYGUIDELINE. Without significant independent sourcing, we cannot have the article, and I cannot see that such exists. Perhaps it will someday, we could always write the article then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a general reference for her biography. There are many news articles and biography pages that we may reference to expand the article. --staka (T ・C) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added two official movie sites, one of which confirms IMDB on her other contributions, like Crash. Anyone desire more sourcing, or is this enough to meet WP:RS? Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie sites are neither secondary (WP:BIO) nor reliable (WP:RS). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on why the official movie sites (references, not external links) are neither sufficiently secondary or reliable. I genuinely do not understand why you don't believe the criteria to have been met. If film credits, primary sources, can be cited, why can the official movie sites not be cited? There's nothing particularly negative or controversial about asserting that she appeared in such-and-such a movie. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, to meet notability, the notability needs to be through independent third-party reliable sources. And given that she is being mentioned in moview reviews and in fact is being singled out for bad acting in this review, there certainly appears to be abundant independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but the assertion was that they weren't reliable, not that they didn't establish notability. I would expect a movie's official website to be a reliable source for the content of the movie (actors, etc.), but insufficient to estabish notability. The assertion that the official site wasn't reliable threw me a curve ball. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - her acting career has named roles of sufficient signifigance that they appear in moview reviews such as this one from CNN. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being part of the main cast of Happenings (which indeed sucks, but is one of the big movies this year) is enough to make her notable. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Any article whose subject has had 482 Google News hits in the past month is not difficult to source. An actress who plays a major role in one of the biggest movies of the year is, in my opinion, inherently notable. faithless (^speak) 03:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G4 by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), citing the below passage of text also in the deletion log reason. Daniel (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Markley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion below indicates that the claims to fame have not generated the secondary sources required to establish independent notability. --jonny-mt 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jael Strauss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has talked about drug issues, had a nudity suit, is the face of Hitch Couture Siemgi 23:21 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, the above cited things make her borderline notable I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How are drug issues in and of themselves notable? And Hitch Couture isn't a notable company (at least, in terms of being national or whatever; I had no idea what it was until I looked it up, and even then...). SKS2K6 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, just like Brittany or Sarah, she's borderline notable, she dealt with the death of a friend by drug overdose in the public eye, she's talked about that a few times in the Tyra Show, I'd say she's a little under Brittany in notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak keep. What she's done (lawsuit, Tyra Show and stuff) make her borderline notable. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:13 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• — Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah VonderHaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Has had a little media coverage for her music career. Has appeared in a movie. Siemgi 23:20 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep She belongs to numerous Wikiepdia listed people who have turned a reality stint into a semi-successful career, this time ine music. And I remember quite a few websites talking about her music career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, around the notability level of Brittany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: She's done stuff. I believe she has an album out now.... But has she done anything notable? Unless her music career becomes big, she does not really belong on Wikipedia, as simply being a contestant on a reality show is not noteworthy enough. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. she's just borderline borderline notable, as her music career was takled abou a little. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:11 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Edit. The more I think about it, the more I find this "very weak keep" ridiculous. I think a weak delete would be more accurate.--Whadaheck (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable contestant, non-notable singer. Dark clear obsession (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wonder if for each cycle of America's Next Top Model there should be a section with some info on the contestants, like about a few lines for each. If so, it would be a perfect fit to Partially Merge. --JForget 23:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree. It's done on PCD Present so why not here?--Whadaheck (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnangarra 12:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Brower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has been on numerous shows (ANTM, Tyra Show, Love Inc...), walked many runways, noted as a memorable contestant on AOL, is on the Fashion Model Directory, on Famous Why... Siemgi 23:11 14 June 2008
• Yes I agree. To me she's a keep but the way the article is referenced is kinda weird... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. i'd say the shows she's been in and the work she's done make her borderline notable but we need more references to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: I know she models. But she hasn't done anything major. Has she had a cover of a national magazine? Has she booked a major advertising campaign? Simply doing her job is not enough to be considered notable. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, she has been on a few TV shows, that makes her borderline notable. User:Whadaheck (User talk:Whadaheck) 13:05 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• — Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Jackson (Model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete She has done one thing notable: she has become the face of a dress brand but aside from that, her career is to new for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Career seems to finally get started, she has been in a music video as a featured girl, thsi has been talked about a little but to me out of the ones nominated here, she's probably the least notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.0.64 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak delete I guess, she's booked her first to campaigns, had a strong fan base while on the show and begins to get press but she's not notable enough as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whadaheck (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dark clear obsession (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnangarra 12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating articles individually (sorry for the mix-up). Please see previous AfD, this is an article that received no, or very few, votes to keep. Subject fails BIO1E, BIO Additional criteria, and Entertainers. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my nomination. L0b0t (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't needed to vote yourself - by putting an article up for deletion, you're already saying you feel it should be deleted. Tabercil (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Contestant has been on 4 shows (Tyra Show, ANTM, Rip the Runway and Project Runway), walked for Fashion Week, had a spread in Essence... Meets the criteria to me. Siemgi 23:08 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Has not accomplished anything notable and has not received significant media coverage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep recently seen in In Touch, has had a little press coverage about her stints on BET and Project Runway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Her runways stints and print work have been talked about a little, she's the second most successful out of her cycle after Chantal, she's about as notable as Bittany or Sarah, so weak keep.

• — 87.231.0.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak keep, borderline notable as an entertainer. Whadaheck (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — Whadaheck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Housekeeping note: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/81.194.35.225 regarding edits by anonymous users and Whadaheck to recent AFD votes. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These conferences did not seem to be all that notable. The article is only sourced by their own website and a passing remark in a college newspaper. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge: this seems to be another in a long line of 'vanity' conferences/summits/organisations/etc that Moon and the Unification Church has put together. They generally have little or no impact discernable through reliable third party sources. A 'List of Unification Church organizations' list-article would be an appropriate repository for them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this article has already been deleted once as non-notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, in December 2006 -- meaning that it really shouldn't have been recreated without solid sourcing to establish WP:NOTE/WP:ORG -- as happened within two months of its original deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These conferences took place in the 1970s and 80s and were widely reported by the news media at the time, which was before the Internet. Here is a Yahoo search for the exact words, "International Conference on for the Unity of the Sciences": [5] As I said on the article's talk page, I'm in the process of finding more sources now. (p.s. I didn't contribute to the original article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It helps to get the name right. Here is the Yahoo search for "International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences" [6].

• Keep: These conferences attracted top scientists, including nobel laureates. I have just restored and added sourced material referencing this, which goes to notability. Steve Dufour promised on the article's talk page on 13 June 2008 to add other such material as soon as his Amazon order arrives. The nominator for AfD of this article either didn't read this on the article's talk page, or decided to nominate it anyway, for whatever reason. In any case the AfD is premature. I am a critic of the Unification Church, and Hrafn is right that there are a number of Unification articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted or merged, but this is not one of them. Just have some patience and wait until sources can be found. -Exucmember (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I said in declining an earlier prod on this article, "Moonie offshoot though it may be, it's notable" Obviously, there will be NPOV issues involved in an article on this, and possible blp issues involved in characterising the nature of any individual's participation. But we can deal with them through the ordinary editing processes. DGG (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: claims of notability to date appear to be either by bare assertion (DGG), name-dropping (Exucmember) -- but notability isn't transitive, or by search results (Steve Dufour) which yield (in their first page) 7 ICUS/UC-linked pages, the wikipedia article itself and 2 sites selling a book published by the ICUS -- hardly evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:NOTE). I would wish to see evidence of said significant coverage before I would agree that notability has been established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Can anybody provide verifiable evidence that they "were widely reported by the news media at the time", or point to any of "the sources in the article" that come even close to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the Harvard Crimson isn't reliable enough for some reason then here is some more evidence of significant coverage. Are the New York Times, the The Philadelphia Inquirer and Encyclopedia Britannica reliable enough sources for you? It only takes a few seconds to do a Google News search that would have avoided the need to argue this out at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given the sources in the article and promise of more work by Steve Dufour. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Exucmember. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]