Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 1

< March 31	April 2 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slash Kamei[edit]

The article is for a compleatly none notable character, using a dubious name! Doktor Wilhelm 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You don't need separate articles.31Gabe (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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 the otters are not amused. that's not how you re-nominate something anyway, especially not when the page is a permanent red link. P.S. Happy April Fool's Day to you too. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weather in London[edit]

The rain, in plain, stays mainly near the Thames. --M @r ē ino 14:02, 1 April 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. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duet Total Compatibility System[edit]

Borderline WP:Advert. Declined speedy to be safe, sending to AfD. Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11 mos definite spam BoL (Talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam & non-notable spam at that :o) Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Definitely qualifies for CSD G11. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. I do not think that this is even borderline. After deletion, the page should be redirected to perfectmatch.com, although that page is also very bad.--FreeKresge (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. I'm surprised the speedy tag was declined in the first place! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is spam Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:19, 5 April 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 closuer. MrPrada (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Clemens von Baumgarten[edit]

non notable historical person, no assertion or proof of existence or notability, OR NewAtThis (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obviously notable. Another spurious AfD nomination from an editor who is tagging every unreferenced article they come across (no matter how obviously notable), and who appears to have little understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. --Canley (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proof of existence and proof of notability. This stuff from NewAtThis is getting rather irritating; see the AN/I thread at WP:ANI#User:NewAtThis at AfD. Deor (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination was done in bad faith or due to lack of experience. —BradV 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, VERY NOTABLE Callelinea (talk) 03:54, 2 April 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 delete.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sealism[edit]

Non-notable religion, very few google hits, article admits it has very few followers. Roleplayer (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only fractionally better than made up. (We could speedy it as copyvio from http://www.freewebs.com/stpdod/ but it has almost certainly been posted by the people from that website.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion (let alone evidence) of notability. Terraxos (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is almost certainly an April Fools joke. It was created at 19:10, 1 April, 2008 server time. It was speedied three minutes later; after the creator {{hangon}}ed, it was AfDed at 19:55.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the section on alcohol for my April Fools reasoning. College student creation? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- as april fools joke...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment April Fools or not, someone appears to still be objecting to this deletion - just this morning 24.99.31.12 (talk · contribs) removed the afd notice from the article. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete it. this is a legitamate wiki and sect and belief. the official website was created well before 4/1 so its not a april fools joke. i found out about this on facebook and its becoming popular at my school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.31.12 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — 24.99.31.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Bierne[edit]

Non-notable because it just has relationship to article-less drummer. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, duly tagged. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:46, 1 April 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 Redirect. I'm going to be bold here and redirect the article since, as Canley points out, this is not an entirely improbable search term, and it appears the nominator is a fairly new user who may not have been aware to redirect rather than nominate for AfD outright. Will leave a note on their page. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.k.rolwing[edit]

Already exists. I think. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to J. K. Rowling. I was about to do this when I edit conflicted with you. Redfarmer (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it'd serve any purpose as a redirect, given a.) the misspelling and b.) the lack of spacing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to tag as speedy. speedy delete as housekeeping, useless redirect/nonsense. special, random, Merkinsmum 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So was I, but I undid it. I guess then I'll undo my undo, this falls under nonsense I guess. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it would fall under nonsense. Maybe housekeeping if the consensus is that a redirect would serve no purpose? Redfarmer (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll wait then. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect I don't think this is too implausible as a typo and redirects are cheap. --Canley (talk) 00:04, 2 April 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 disambiguation page, procedural keep on the redirects. Although I understand the thinking behind bundling these together, redirects are a different beast and need to be discussed at WP:RFD. As such, I only examined the consensus as it relates to the disambiguation page. --jonny-m t 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation)[edit]

DAB page for two WP:NN albums, neither of which are apparently worthy of their own pages. Both are redirects and included in this Afd. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are WP:NN and don't have their own articles, rather they redirect:[reply]

Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) exists because of wikt:harshing my mellow. I was going to make a soft redirect, but then found other things under the same title, so it became a disambig. Sometimes redirects are used as placeholders when an article does not exist (yet). The DAB is appropriate and should stay. --evrik ^(talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are either of the bands notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: neither of the bands is notable enough to have their own article. One redirects to the drummer's page and the other to the record label. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harshing Your Mellow, akimbo 971 ghits

Harshing my Mellon, bewitched 2330 ghits

Again, this originally started as harshing my mellow but has been moved around several times. When I found other things with similar names it became a {{disambig}}. Make harshing my mellow a soft redirect to wikt:harshing my mellow, like wikt:pimp slap. I'm fine with that. --evrik ^(talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disambig, but move other discussion to WP:RFD. Okay.. this is a little complicated and will only get worse. First of all Harshing My Mellow, Harshing My Mellow (album), and Harshing Your Mellow are all REDIRECTS and should be discussed at WP:RFD, not here. The disambig page, right now, is only disambiguating those redirects. However, the hard Harshing My Mellow does NOT point to the disambig (in fact, nothing does). So, delete this useless disambig first, decide what to do with the redirects (and maybe even the articles they point to) second, then discuss the need for a new disambig last. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm striking my original !vote as things have changed since I first commented. I think there's some MOS issues here, but nothing to get into a twist over not worth either an AFD or an RFD. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nothing points to the DAB page because when the redirect got deleted someone went and changed the wikilinks. --evrik ^(talk) 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)~~ There are now articles pointing back at the page.--evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had a pretty good solution above. I recommend boldly putting your soft redirect at Harshing my mellow for now with a {{Otheruses}} tag on it. That should resolve your concerns I think. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - While I appreciate that, that would put the whole thing back to square one. I object to WP:BOLD as it short circuits a full discussion. This should get a chance to sit for a few days. --evrik ^(talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your call, evrik. Unless something points to that disambig page through {{Otheruses}} or something similar, my !vote stands at delete it. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will ever be a full article, but if you look at google you'll see that the DAB page is now the second highest ranked page when the term is searched and it points to relevant information here in wikipedia and wiktionary. The DAB serves its purpose. --evrik ^(talk) 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambiguation page as unnecessary (no articles to disambiguate between). No objection to making it a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Terraxos (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lot of misinformation in this debate. Currently there are seven articles that link to the {{disambig}} page. --evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness and in the interest of full disclosure, you added those 7 links after these users made their comments. The information was accurate when those comments were made. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and keep. Delete the disambiguation page; it serves no purpose. An obvious Keep for the redirects, since they allow readers to find the articles pertaining to the albums, which is a fundamental use of redirects. They should not have been included with this AfD in the first place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with the deletion of Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation). What I ask is that the contents of the page be moved to harshing my mellow. Have all the redirects point to that page. --evrik ^(talk) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary disambiguation. PhilKnight (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disambuation and album pages because "Harshing My Mello" gets the job done and keep "Harshing Your Mellow" because it is slightly more convenient than using the search function. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:39, 8 April 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; default to keep. - Philippe 03:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sundowner[edit]

Not a disambig page, doesn't link to any articles, more like a dictionary definition. Has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Wiktionary entry seems to cover all the bases, and some of this article is rather far-fetched (for example, sundown town ≠ sundowner). The Sundowners, which I saw in its first run when I was 11 years old, remains one of my favorite films, but I don't see a need for this article, either in itself or as a dab page. Deor (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2008
Comment - I can vouch for the medical term as a familair one used in hospital. Tricky really, agree with whole dictionary/'pedia interface thing. I can't make up my mind....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - needs serious cleanup, as most of these uses are probably not notable, but if more references are provided for those that are, this could become an acceptable disambiguation page. Terraxos (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages point to pages where there are articles. This isn't pointing to articles. Corvus cornix_talk 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Both to make sure that everything is included, and because I think replacing the page with a {{wi}} is better than deleting it outright. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but if the decision is to delete I'll write a separate article on Sundowner wind, which we need (I contributed that part, and it's the only part with a cite). Maybe I should anyway. All that stuff in that very odd "disambig" page needs cites. Antandrus (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Soundowner wind should be its own article, anyway. Good on you for that. Corvus cornix_talk 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move the text on sundowner winds to sundowner wind and delete the rest. -Neitherday (talk) 06:21, 4 April 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 by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dexter[edit]

Possibly db-bio - no notability asserted. Person is "a part time multimedia entrepreneur and photographer currently attending American University".

There was a previous version of this article that seems to be a different person. That person also doesn't quite meet WP:BIO, or WP:PORNBIO. Adamdexter (talk · contribs) seems to have re-written the article to be about himself, deleting the previous person. Recommend the whole thing be deleted. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability concern. MrPrada (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 2 April 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 kept, non-admin close. BJ^Talk 10:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITT Technical Institute[edit]

Gross lack of npov Woipwoipwoip (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep NPOV tags are already on the article. The subject is clearly notable given the multiple reliable sources; NPOV issues can easily be fixed and are not a reason for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad-faith nom by an WP:SPA. Corvus cornix_talk 23:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, This is a laughable nomination by a disgruntled editor who is abusing the Articles for deletion process. Mysteryquest (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad nom. Subject is clearly notable and AfD is not cleanup. Redfarmer (talk) 00:18, 2 April 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 Merged to Felmersham. Black Kite 09:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinchmill Lower School[edit]

The school is not notable and does not meet Wikipedias guidelines for entry Bleaney (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I must confess, despite the fact I live here, I'm not terribly familiar with England's school system (I went to school in the states). Do British schools have districts as we did in the states where this could be redirected to? Would it be practical to merge it into the upper school the article says the lower school is a feeder school for? Redfarmer (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, is there any way to save this from an outright deletion? Redfarmer (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it could be merged to Felmersham. That might be an acceptable solution. Deor (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Felmersham. I'm going to trust Deor on this. I don't feel the school has enough notability to stand on its own. However, there should be something somewhere on it. Redfarmer (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Felmersham Bleaney (talk) 14:34, 2 April 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, defaulted to keep. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hangly-Man[edit]

A Pac-Man bootleg with very few differences between it and the original game. Fails notability and lacks sources. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the notability criteria. Macy (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pac-Man was the most hacked game out there and Hangly-Man was one of the most significant hacks. Contrary to nom's comments, and as mentioned in article, the differences between Pac-Man and Hangly-Man were significant, as much so as those between Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk)
Of course, I myself say keep. Ditto for what Brian said, above. This was when I first joined Wikipedia, and I didn't think to use the various emulation and "museum" sites that had information on it as sources. I remember one site I wanted to use was down. This was like the first new article I ever created, and also one of my first contributions. So sorry about that. Here are the sources:

CAESAR
Killer List of Video Games
Video Game Museum [1]
Eric B (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC) article creator[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge. With Pacman Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be sourced into Pac-Man. A minor footnote in Pac-Man history. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit more than minor. It seemed to spark off the wave of hacks that brought us classics like Ms. PacMan. (though Piranha might have been slightly earlier, IIRC). At one point, it seemed all of the PacMan machines in NYC had been converted to this game. (this was right before Ms. came out as the smash "official" sequel). I think the reason I made it a separate article in the first place was because the main PacMan article was already so full. This is notable in its own right. Eric B (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pac-Man clones. The article as it stands at the moment I think is breaching WP:WEIGHT. If Eric B can find further sourcing to support the article I might be persuaded otherwise, but for the moment I think that it would work better as a section in the article on clones. --Gazimoff (talk) 23:51, 6 April 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. - Philippe 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive things[edit]

This article lists a number of expensive things from a painting to coffee to certain precious metals. The word "things" in the title gives rise to questions about what should or should not be included. Also, the article is on a rather obscure subject. Finally, it may be difficult to tell if some of the listed things are indeed the most expensive things. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possibly one of the loosest defined lists on Wikipedia -- no clear definition as to what "things" constitutes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend to the closer of this discussion that this argument be ignored for irrelevance, in response to its citing an easily remediable title/content deficiency, rather than addressing the encyclopedicity of the topic, as discussed in my contrib below, annotated "Comment".
  --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The article's purpose seems awkward in that the table does not have categories or labels for what each most expensive thing is the most expensive of. For example, the abstract painting by Jackson Pollock should be labeled the most expensive 'abstract painting ever sold at auction'. However, if the article is left unchanged for some amount of time without labeling, the article should be deleted. If it is deleted, it should be made into a redirect page that redirects to the Most expensive disambiguation page where there are related articles with narrower topics. Some of the things listed in this article may be merged into some of the narrower articles. WinterSpw (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, this is merely an excuse to have an article that states world records. The Dominator (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend to the closer of this discussion that this argument be ignored for irrelevance, in response to its citing WP:NOT#DIR, without making any relevant argument that that policy is applicable, as discussed in my contrib below, annotated "Comment".
  --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although other sources are cited, the real surprise would be if there are any categories on here that haven't, at one time or another, been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records. Mandsford (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bit loose. I think sub-articles with better criteria (List of expensive paintings, [[List of most expensive cars]), with clearly defined criteria for what constitutes expensive would work, though. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty loose and a vio of WP:NOT#DIR. Seems to be something made up while bored or at least original research Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend to the closer of this discussion that this argument be ignored for irrelevance, in response to its citing WP:NOT#DIR, without making any relevant argument that that policy is applicable, as discussed in my contrib below, annotated "Comment".
  --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WAY too broad. I have no problems with seperate "most expensive cars/pizzas/metals etc." lists however Rename and Clean-up per Jarzy's comments--Armanalp (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)-Armanalp (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Define "things". Otherwise too broad Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend to the closer of this discussion that this argument be ignored for irrelevance, in response to its citing an easily remediable title/content deficiency, rather than addressing the encyclopedicity of the topic, as discussed in my contrib below, annotated "Comment".
  --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the principle that WP is not a lynch mob, i'm marking several "votes" with a recommendation that they be disregarded.
1. "Things" may be a poorly worded choice, but that should not be a reason for more than a renaming, or even just a more specific specification within the lead. It might be wise, for instance, to specify that each thing have what i call "encyclopedic coverage" in an article, i.e., more than the quasi-dictdef that you would fit into the lead sent if there were to be an article on it.
2. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory includes restrictions on its scope, explicitly via a footnote
  This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject.
  
  and implicitly via 5 numbered paragraphs -- 4 of them in fact individually linkable, viz. #2 (WP:NOT#Genealogical), #3 (WP:NOT#Directories), #4 (WP:NOT#Sales), and #5 (WP:NOT#Cross) -- that should be cited in order to demonstrate that a particular invocation of "WP:NOT#DIR" is more than a term of abuse. In the case of the nominated article, it seems clear that #2-5 are inapplicable. #1 would clearly be inapplicable, except that the phrase
  quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)
  
  is preceded by
  such as (but not limited to)
  
  IMO it is incumbent upon anyone citing "WP:NOT#DIR" and intending thereby to invoke #1 to say e.g. "it is like a list of quotations or of fictional persons, because ...".
  --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete unverifiable. Laudak (talk) 03:48, 7 April 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. DS (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Your Turn[edit]

Contested prod, removed by author. WP:HOAX. Fails WP:MOVIE. Cites no sources; fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Future movies can't be notable - they haven't done anything yet. —BradV 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax, and also delete Martin Anthony Santiago, which I am adding to this nomination. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there's enough here to call it a hoax, but this is definitely a WP:CRYSTAL issue, aside from being sourceless. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 2 April 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 Redirected —BradV 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of skyscrapers in Pittsburgh by height[edit]

Better article already exist List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh Alaskan assassin (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh. The nominated article is redundant and inferior to the other one. Nick Graves (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh per Nick Graves. -- Rai-me 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done —BradV 21:54, 1 April 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 Delete for no-content. - Philippe 03:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in the Caribbean[edit]

No content. Exists only to contain a single template. I considered A3 speedy, but will give it a chance here. It's just, to me, a "List" page without a list is not useful. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nom says, a page to contain the template- and that's all there is. It looks just like what you'd see going to the template page itself. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's really not a list, it's a list of lists, and the template serves this purpose just fine. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no way this topic could possibly be considered non-notable, and we already have List of airports in North America. This article just needs some text. Plenty of templates have their own "parent" articles. Joshdboz (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for lack of any real reason that I can see to justify deletion. — scetoaux (T/C) 22:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unless someone wants to organize this not non-notable topic into the standard form used for similar articles. In its current form, it doesn't give a hint that it's a list of lists of airports. To the average reader, it would appear to be a list of Caribbean nations. Leave the topic to someone who knows how to write for an online encyclopedia. Mandsford (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per no-context. Anyway define "airport" it may be private or an airfield for all you know. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If someone wants to create an actual list, then they can. But a list of countries, in a template, needs to go. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 5 April 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. - Philippe 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Perry[edit]

Non-notable football manager, does not appear to have managed and/or played at even close to a professional level. The team are (just) notable, individuals connected with them in either a playing or managerial capacity are not. fchd (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make redirect to Daventry Town F.C.. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn BanRay 10:25, 5 April 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, for the lack of reliable sources beyond coverage of associated subjects, or other clear indications of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso R. del Portillo[edit]

This article was previously deleted at AFD and was recreated today. I speedied it as a CSD:G4 as the article was more or less the same as the one that was AFDed. The author asked me to reconsider as he had added additional references, so I have restored it and am listing here. I don't think the references really change much as the original deletion was on notability grounds and there has been no content added to explain notability. Delete. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. The article was not deleted because it was a poor article (that would be against the rules). It was deleted because the subject of the article is not notable. Indeed the only claim to notability is that the subject once was an assistant to a U.S. congresswoman. —BradV 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, One of the main complaints in the previous Afd discussion is that the material was unverifiable. It is now full of in-line citations. I know some of you may not like the idea of an autobiographical article, but it is not prohibited. I have gone through the article and have removed some things that I could not find citations for. Additionally, you will see that I was interviewed for the local PBS station regarding my involvement with Pedro Zamora and my work with Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen. Callelinea (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often we get the subject of the article involved in an AfD, but since you're here, let's ask: What have you done that meets the notability requirements at WP:BIO? —BradV 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a widely recognized contribution in the bringing of many persons in to the United States, such as the families of Rey Ruiz, Pedro Zamora, and over 15,000 other persons. I have appeared on television to speak on that issue. Additionally, I have written in the editorial columns in The Miami Herald. It was due to my work and of a co-worker in the Congresswomans office that the US government began to issue Public Interest Paroles to Cuban nationals. Callelinea (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable third-party sources that mention this that we could use as references? Google News turns up nothing. —BradV 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google News will only show articles in newspapers and magazines. Even though I would of expected maybe my editorials in the Miami Herald to of shown up. But what is not shown are my interviews, such as the one in my in-line citation with the PBS station in Miami. Callelinea (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you said "widely recognized". That implies that there are more references than one interview on your local PBS station. —BradV 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the mention in Judd Winick book on Pedro Zamora and in the Wall Street Journal story? Opps my fault, I forgot to put that one in. Callelinea (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references cannot be verified- just a list of articles. NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but if that is your only reason to delete then you need to read Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, which references are you claiming cannot be verified? Callelinea (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see my reply on your talk page concerning independent verifiability of all sources, which this article lacks. Dreamspy (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a resume of accomplishments, none of which satisfy notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still non-notable. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for you to put your two cents worth.Callelinea (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability (along with G4 as noted above). Moreover, the references tend to verify the lack of encyclopedic content and potential. This material would be wonderful in a family history, genealogical work or marketing bio/CV but this is not the place for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Nick Graves (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment I would also suggest WP:SNOW.~~ Gwen Gale (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have noticed that several university professors have their own wikipedia pages that have less information and notability than this person. I dont understand the rush to delete this page of a person who is notable at least in South Florida. NancyHeise (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep, (and edit conflict in trying to post this, glad I'm not the only one who sees the use in this one) notability is not only asserted but amply referenced in multiple independent sources, which meets the foundation principle of notability. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mr. del Portillo says that he is notable because "Even though I would of expected maybe my editorials in the Miami Herald to of shown up." That's a fragment. And the "would of" and "to of shown" are just too, too precious. This isn't the kind of writing that the Miami Herald or any other newspaper would publish, so it's hard to imagine that he's notable as a writer. If he did indeed write for the paper, the editor must of (LOL!) had to clean up his prose. Qworty (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing "off the cuff". I am concerned that you did not state your reasons as to why the article should be deleted. Remember that your comments should not be "personal" but about the subject at hand. Callelinea (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing personal about it. The subject claims that he is notable as a newspaper contributor, yet his writing is not even on the high school level. It's a cold, hard fact that no newspaper contributor who writes like that could possibly be notable as a journalist. Qworty (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very inappropriate. We are discussing an article. Please read no personal attacks. —BradV 02:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack. He's questioning the del Portillo's assertion that he's a newspaper writer. Nightscream (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"too, too precious" is a slam and is indeed a personal attack. One need not demean the other party to make a point. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may indeed be a fine person, and I have nothing at all to say about him personally. I am making an objective determination about a piece of writing that was offered in evidence of journalistic notability. It is not a personal attack to point out, quite correctly, that that piece of writing is woefully sub-par. It's ungrammatical, it's awkward, it doesn't belong in the Miami Herald, and indeed I challenge anyone to find the too, too precious constructions "would of" and "to of shown" in the Miami Herald or any other newspaper. I'm not saying the guy's a jerk. I'm saying his writing is ungrammatical--and the only reason that's relevant at all is because of the assertion of journalistic notability. Qworty (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming my "Noteworthiness" on my journalistic skills or of my being a writer, I only made that reference because someone stated that they got no google hits on my name. My notabilty has to do with my immigration expertise especially when it has to do with Cubans,especially when it has to do with Pedro Zamora; a topic I am an expert on.Callelinea (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The charge above (if it is one) of a personal attack doesn't much interest me. But some of the comments above on writing are silly. Like it or not, use of "of" for "have" is commonplace, does not obscure meaning, and is not a grammatical but an orthographic slip (one that happens to suggest a grammatical mistake). A comment above suggests that high-school students are better in their prose style than I had realized. And I'd be very surprised if the Miami Herald didn't employ copyeditors. ¶ I still think the article should be deleted, but only for sensible reasons. -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't care if it's not prohibited, this article should never have been created and edited by its subject, and indeed, it should be prohibited to create one's own article. Putting that aside, the article indicates two things that Alonso has done: Being a senator's assistant, and assisting with the emigration of thousands of Cuban immigrants. Neither of those two things make him noteworthy, and he certainly isn't widely known, or been the focus of any news coverage of any historical event. Nightscream (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that just 9 months ago you wrote this "Keep - While most of the six articles by this author that were AfD nominated should be deleted, I believe the subject of this one is noteworthy enough to keep. I worked extensively on the Judd Winick and Pedro Zamora articles, and del Portillo was indeed mention in one of the main reference sources I relied on for info. He is a public figure (albeit not a household name), and I believe noteworthy enough to have an article. Nightscream 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)" The article now has more references and now you think it should be deleted. I am particulary amazed because you were so outspoken for its inclusion a few months ago.Callelinea (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that telling quote, Nightscream should not be pointing fingers about credibility and what's excusable, here or on the article's talkpage. This is not some eighth-grader's vanity article about what position he plays in pee-wee ball and that he's going to grow up to be president, this is a valuable, credited member of the Cuban-American community, which is the greatest success story in US immigration in 50 years, partially thanks to del Portillo. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's hardly anything "telling" about the quote, other than I simply changed my mind after reexamining the article, and the issues involved. How you figure this impugns my credibility or excusability, I don't know, unless you think changing one's mind is some type of scandalous sin. Funny how I only learned about this AfD because Alonso himself asked me to participate in it, but now I allegedly have no business speaking here or a Talk Page because I didn't give the answer he thought I'd give. In any event, this will not affect my ability to speak here or anywhere else. As for your other comments, whether he is a valuable, credited member of the Cuban-American community, or the greatest success story in US immigration in 50 years, has no bearing on whether he is notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Nightscream (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after careful consideration and some google-work, the strength of the keep arguments clearly outweigh the volume of the delete arguments, none of which cite an actionable reason with substance other then the G4 concern. Assuming the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, etc., meet WP:RS and WP:V, which I believe they do, its time to WP:IAR, the subject more then meets the criteria for second and third party sources for WP:N. MrPrada (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found one article with more than a trivial mention of del Portillo right off the bat [2] from the Herald, although it is negative (noting he was supsended without pay by the Congresswoman for two weeks after he signed her name without authorization twice) and not currently mentioned in the bio. MrPrada (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone aside from User:Callelinea describe in one sentence how or where the text of this autobiographical article asserts the notability of its subject? Over half of the article text deals with his kinships, which while interesting, are not at all encyclopedic under WP:BIO (but would be of some genealogical interest in southern Florida and Cuba). The strongest assertion of notability I can find is From 1989-1996, he assisted more than 15,000 persons[4] with problems with the US government. Please note, over a 7 year period, taking into account weekends and vacation time, this would amount to dealing with 8 or 9 people a day, or one person per hour, which implies the mass processing of rather routine bureaucratic paperwork of some kind. While clearly, by ordinary chance a few of these people would have been famous/notable, his involvement would not be. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on. I don't see why it should be somebody other than Callelinea. If Callelinea persuasively explained in one sentence or three how the subject of his article is noteworthy, that would be OK. He's had a go above (or at the foot of this earlier version), but that didn't go down well; he's always welcome to have another bash at it. (My own instinct is that modesty dictates that one should not write this kind of thing about oneself, but what I've seen over the years at en:WP tells me that I'm terribly out of touch.) ¶ Incidentally, this was the first time I'd heard of Zamora; his article is quite a hagiography. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough for me, though I asked for input from others only because of the neutrality worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - subject is not notable. Reading the above convinces me people shouldn't write articles about themselves; they take it really personally in these situations. It is a re-creation of a previously deleted article to which nothing has been added conferring notability. Jack1956 (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Conflict of interest article. Notability is not inherited so while Pedro Zamora may be notable, the subject's relationship with him does not make the subject notable. Stextc (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Userfication is an option if this article is deleted, either to the author's user page or a subpage. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: seconded. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not establish notability per WP:Notability (people). Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Laudak (talk) 04:12, 7 April 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 non-notable. - Philippe 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shenandoah, Iowa Police Department[edit]

Once filter to the right Shenandoah, there's no evidence of significant RS coverage and ghits don't assert any notability. It's a local organization. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Police forces are not inherently notable - we need reliable third-party sources. —BradV 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; article looks to be OR as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A police force for a town of 5000? I don't think so. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shenandoah, Iowa. It has 8 full-time officers, 3 dispatchers, and 6 part-time employees, and it serves a small town, no doubt doing everything from parking tickets to cooperating with other law enforcement agencies in police investigations. Worthy of praise and appreciation, but not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Mandsford (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shenandoah, Iowa. I created the article because the information was left on a list of Iowa law enforcement agencies by User:63.227.158.238 and I did not want to simply delete it. As no one seems to be expanding it, merging seems a reasonable idea. SGT141 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 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. - Philippe 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluidic wallpaper[edit]

I found less that 100 google hits for this orphan/stub article. Also, the article suggests the technology is still being worked out. It is non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google gets some mentions of it as in-development; I think this has the potential to be expanded and properly sourced. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing about this proposed product has been of note since the initial announcement in 2002. If Boeing ever develops it into an accepted product, that would be different. At this time it's just an idea that may not have gone anywhere, given the intervening silence -- or maybe all the coverage is just blocked by the compressed air. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC
Delete - Like most R&D projects it is not "almost certain" to happen. Thus this article violates WP:CRYSTAL which states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." If we had articles on everything a corporation was currently working on, then WP would be a crazy non-encyclopedic place. Earthdirt (talk) 03:24, 6 April 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. - Philippe 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Pirates[edit]

This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more gamecruft. The SFU should start a Wikia for this. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not game guide, or rpg guide. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Orion (Star Trek), since Orion Pirates are featured in the original TV series. 70.51.9.57 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as per above Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:42, 3 April 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. Fram (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorn Confederation[edit]

This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more gamecruft. The SFU should start a Wikia for this. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Article does not any cite reliable sources as evidence of notability outside the game from which it derives.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:01, 6 April 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. Fram (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps minor races in the Star Fleet Universe might be deleted occasionally. However, Klingons have achieved iconic status within the American culture as a whole, at least within pop culture, as well as within Star trek. therefore i consider this entry worthwhile. even though it is only about Klingons as depicted within the Star Fleet Battles game universe. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that this Afd is about Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe), not Klingon, Klingon language, Klingon High Council or Klingon culture. Star Fleet Universe, not Star Trek universe. Jobjörn (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other readers: my comment above was to this revision of the text above it. Jobjörn (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think your comment is a very fair and reasonable clarification, and not in need of any explanation. however, i accept whatever you mnay think best. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Klingons in Star Trek are iconic and notable. Klingons as they appear separately within a game universe? Not so notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to indicate that these game universe Klingons are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good day to delete these non-notable Klingons. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ghay'cha', and let it rot forever more. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable sources to demonstrate this notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:06, 6 April 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. Both sides raise good points below, but after reading through the arguments multiple times I found that the arguments for deletion all echoed the same point--specifically, a failure to demonstrate real-world notability--while the arguments for keeping the article ranged from its importance within the Star Trek universe to the sheer scope of the information involved to speculation that reliable sources should exist. However, as no sources have emerged addressing the issues of notability brought up by the deletion comments, I consider this more pressing issue to remain unsolved and thus consider the policy-based arguments for discussion as being sufficient to establish a consensus to delete.

As a disclaimer, I did not examine either the precedent cases nor the previous AfD arguments--this close is based on my interpretation of the arguments as presented below. Finally, I (or, I imagine, most of the admins who participated in the discussion) will be more than happy to provide a copy of the text to anyone who wants to userfy or transwiki the content. --jonny-m t 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between United Federation of Planets and United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe).

Delete, more gamecruft. The SFU should start a Wikia for this. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this sci fi nomenclature has no place here, it is 100% original research anyways which makes me merciless in my vote. Transwiki to the Star Trek wiki for the losers there to have fun withNewAtThis (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, be civil. Secondly, you can't speedy delete an article that has survived 2 AfDs. --Smashville^BONK! 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. newatthis is a fairly obvious sockpuppet of a banned user. Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking real-world notability; transwiki if there is actually an appropriate place for it. Terraxos (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major component of the series background.I recognize this is about the non-0canon elements, but the non-canon material on this is so extensive that articles like this are justified. DGG (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The organization within the scope of the original Star Trek universe is notable. Within the scope of a spin-off game? Not so notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. notability to a real-world audience, plenty of references, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia”, of which there are many published books, concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the difference between United Federation of Planets and United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe). Jobjörn (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me any references from reliable sources to the information in this article? Jobjörn (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for one reason and one reason only: there are no independent secondary sources about this topic, not even a mention. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all the fantasy and sci fi magazines out there, I doubt there are no secondary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sci-fi magazines mostly discuss literature, television and movies - not spin-off computer game factions. Also, fanzines are usually self-published, and therefore not WP:RS. But, if you can find a source, I'll keep maintaining an open mind! Jobjörn (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It could take longer than a week long AfD (for my part, I've been focusing on mining the latest GamePro for any relevant sources to add to a variety of game related articles) to effectively go through all potential sources and as Wikipedia does not have a deadline, editors should be given the chance to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you suggesting that the Deletion policy does not apply? There is a deadline now. Take the article into your userspace and work on it there. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Only copy vios, libel, child pornography, my space esque articles, and hoaxes need urgently be deleted in a week, rather than allowing the article a chance to improve. A verifiable and notable topic that multiple good faith editors see value in and on multiple AfDs does not. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: two more related precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) (2nd nomination) (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion Pirates (delete). Jobjörn (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change and just because other articles have been deleted that seem similar, since we cannot review those articles here for comparative purposes, we cannot really cite them as precedents as we do not know now what their quality was versus the article currently under discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No matter whether they are precedents or not, they are related. Comment above was merely a FYI comment. Jobjörn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you show us the articles so we can see what their quality was like at time of deletion versus this article? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Obviously not, as they have been deleted and I am not an administrator. However, you could see Star Fleet Universe/Interstellar Concordium and Star Fleet Universe/Lyran -- temporary copies of the first "precedents" mentioned in my nomination above. You could also ask an administrator to restore the information in the deleted articles, I know that DGG is willing to help with this. Jobjörn (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then, could someone please restore the information so we can see for comparative purposes? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG on this one; the amount of information contained on this topic makes this article more than justified. GlassCobra 16:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of information is hardly relevant, and I don't think that was what DGG meant. Jobjörn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, that is approximately what I meant. Usually we pretty much ignore non-canon as better suited to a specialized wiki, but Star Trek non-canon is so notable in its own right that this is one of the relatively few cases we should include it. DGG (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - If it contains a good deal of valuable information, we must keep it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what qualifies as "valuable information"? "The Treaty of the Neutral Zone that ended the Romulan War defined the Federation border as being 4,750 parsecs from the center of the Primary Member Zone"? If I thought the article contained valuable information (per the definition "encyclopedic content"), I would not have nominated it in the first place. Jobjörn (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is not seem like valuable information to you may be valuable information for someone researching this kind of work of fiction. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly. "Valuable information" is subjective, it depends on the point of view of the person accessing the information. Therefore, stating that an article must be kept because it contains "valuable information" is ridiculous. To decide whether or not an article should be deleted, we must instead use objective criteria - in this case, we must decide whether the article's topic (the fictional faction "United Federation of Planets" in the Star Trek-offshoot "Star Fleet Universe") is notable (per Wikipedia:Notability) or not. And I think not, as there are no reliable sources independent of the subject. As proving that there are no sources is impossible, the burden of proof lies on the one who claims there are sources - proving that there are some is easy, provided there actually are any. Jobjörn (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I would much rather err on the side of keeping something that is potentially useful than deleting it and gaining nothing. If even one donor or good faith contributor finds this relevant, we should humor them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying that we should keep articles to please potential donors? Wow. Jobjörn (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are many reasons to keep the article. There is no advantage to deleting it. Even in a worst case scenario we would redirect without deletion to preserve editors' public contribs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you referring to this book search? I hope you are aware that ALL of these books deal with United Federation of Planets, while this afd is about United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)? Jobjörn (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. No real world notability, gamecruft. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM and Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly plot Summary, with no real-world notability asserted, and unsourced. Black Kite 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources about the game version. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not paper and the nominator gives an invalid reason for deletion. The factions and races within it do not have to be notable, per WP:NNC. And I would hardly call two AFDs that closed earlier today a precedent. --Pixelface (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have in total nominated six SFU-faction articles for deletion. The other five have been closed as delete. Furthermore, I don't see how WP:NNC is relevant - it clearly states Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, which is what we are discussing here. WP:NNC deals with the content of the article, which is not relevant as to whether it should be kept or deleted. Jobjörn (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and the nominator is just copy-pasting their reason for deletion from other AFDs [3] [4] which closed 6 days ago. If the nominator cannot take the time to tell us why this article should be deleted, I see no reason to take this nomination seriously. This looks like WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering all the replies I have made to the various comments to this afd, it should be quite obvious that I have put a lot of time into this. That I copy-pasted the nomination text was because the argument I made for deletion of those two articles, and three others also nominated and deleted, is exactly the same. That while SFU is notable, factions within are not. I have yet to see anyone actually provide a reliable third-party source even mentioning the United Federation of Planets as depicted in the Star Fleet Universe, so far all attempts to do so have been confusing references to material dealing with the "real" United Federation of Planets. Also, this is not a bad-faith or make-a-point-nomination - I nominated two other similar articles to begin with, not wanting to disrupt the system by nominating lots of articles and once. Finally, I have only listed this article for deletion once, and that was soon after I stumbled upon the articles related to the Star Fleet Universe for the first time. I had no hand in the earlier deletion discussions (although I have of course read them). I fail to see why you should not take this nomination seriously - it is indeed very serious, and you should assume good faith. Jobjörn (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator does not provide sufficient reasons for deletion. This is topic covered in several published works over 20 years of nearly continuous publication. Web Warlock (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you are not confusing this with the "real" UFP? Jobjörn (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know exactly what this is. I have many of the books for the game. Web Warlock (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. Do you have any third party references? Jobjörn (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. And I am adding them now and will continue tomorrow morning. Web Warlock (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No denying, White Dwarf (magazine) is a reliable third party source. Nevertheless, I don't think it's that easy - one, is UFP the subject of the articles in the magazine? two, are there any other secondary sources? If the answer is no to either one of these questions, notability can not yet be established, and so the article should be deleted. Jobjörn (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are. You seem to really want this AfD to go through, is there some bias you have against this article or, given you mentioned your other AfDs, SciFi articles in general? Is this a bad faith nom? Web Warlock (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, definitely not. I love science fiction, I maintain a personal library of some ~100 sci-fi books. Star Trek is pretty much the only TV show I ever watch. And I'm off to a gaming convent in less than a month... I haven't tried any of the SFU games, but I think I'd like them. However, that I'd probably like them is not relevant. I nominated the article for a very simple reason, I do not think the subject of it (fictional faction of a not all too well-known rpg) is not notable enough to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia of ours. That I nominated the other five articles is because they are pretty much exactly like this, just a different faction. In an earlier AfD, I suggested a List of factions and races in the Star Fleet Universe, but it did not seem to win any approval - consensus was basically "go to hell". I am defending this afd so vehemently because, well, there's a reason as to why I made it and that reason is still around. Also, keeping this and deleting the other five would be quite inconsistent. Jobjörn (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it looks like consensus has changed from this discussion, we could always just Deletion review the other five to see if it has changed for them as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does not look like consensus has changed to me. Jobjörn (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, this AfD is currently at "no consensus" status, while I obviously believe the keep side is providing the more compelling argument, there certainly is not any general agreement, but I don't recall participating in the others, and I may have been another keep voice, meaning those might have been "no consensus" as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Whatever the outcome, could you please provide an explanation of the rationale behind your decision? Jobjörn (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because Star Trek is a massive franchise and this seems to be a very important piece of it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG, and it does not appear as though consensus has changed. MrPrada (talk) 04:43, 8 April 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 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ryerson University people[edit]

WP:IINFO, WP is not a random list of information. If anything, this would be best served by a category but I'm not certain that Ryerson University is really that relevant to a discussion of a vast majority of these people. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. The list is useful because it includes a brief description of the person, in the same way that a disambiguation page does. The redlinked names (which by definition would not appear in a category) are useful because they are indications of notable people about whom articles ought to be written. Lists and categories are both useful, each in their own way. --Eastmain (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of notable Ryerson University alumni (current name is ambiguous); it's a split-out alumni section from Ryerson University, which makes good sense considering its length. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to better name). A list can be a good thing as it can be described and sorted and include red links that categories cannot do. This list could use some tidying and has no references but that can be tagged and repaired. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to List of Ryerson University alumni. ("notable" is discouraged in article titles) There is longstanding precedent for alumni lists, which are clearly discriminate, and university/college connections have longstanding cultural precedence as a way of identifying or classifying people. --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a useful split out from the main Article (Ryerson University). How is it a "random list" if it is only people from 1 school? Many of these people figure prominently in the Canadian landscape. (I support the Move to List of Ryerson University alumni though.) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:19, 1 April 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Giant Hovercraft[edit]

"Planned, future", therefore violates WP:Crystal ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poorly-sourced crystal-ballery. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the Boeing 787 justifies an article then the New Giant Hovercraft does. RE the sources issue, there is plenty of info on the NGH, but unfortunately most of it is in blogs, which is why I've not used it. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh come now, what about WP:OSE? Even so, at least Boeing has rolled out a 787... – ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it back to my sandbox. If it goes, it goes. In reply to Stifle, the two sources I have used are not "poorly sourced" sources, they are reputable sources which meet Wikipedias criteria for such. As I said, there is plenty of info out there, but most of it is in blogs. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources look good enough for me here; it appears to be a legit project-in-planning. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - While hovercrafts are cool and it may be legitimately PLANNED it nonetheless, like most corporate ventures undertaken by smallish companies it is not "almost certain" to happen. Thus this article violates WP:CRYSTAL which states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." If we had articles on everything a corporation was currently working on, then WP would be a crazy non-encyclopedic place. Now if a government website published info on it, or a major news source had government officials talking about unveiling dates and contracts then we would have an article. Earthdirt (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Atlas Hovercraft are not a "smallish company", they are a major manufacturer of hovercraft. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the keep voters probably did not notice that the (only) cited article in from 2005 and since then not a single beep on the google radar. Laudak (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo gives a better result. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 7 April 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 closure) with strong consensus to merge to be acted upon on the talkpage. Skomorokh 00:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Album Demos[edit]

Non-notable demo with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. The band talked a little about the leak in an interview—trivial coverage. Most of the article appears to be original research. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Devil and God Are Raging Inside Me, and trim it down. The album article should have a sentence or two about the leak. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Devil and God Are Raging Inside Me, and trim it down (thank you JeremyMcCracken). As per American Idiot, for example. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per WP:MUSIC - Non notable on its own. Should be merged with The Devil and God Are Raging Inside Me or Brand New. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:00, 2 April 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 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Combat![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable collectible card game. Sources go so far as to confirm that it exists, but very little more than that. Wikis and resale sites not reliable sources. Last AfD closed with no consensus, and virtually no participation. Relisting to get a greater sampling to build consensus. DarkAudit (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus can be made when you have one yea, one nay, and no one else bothering to show up. It's not my problem that the typical course of action in a case like this wasn't followed. DarkAudit (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- While there are few online resources related to this game, it was a relatively early copy-cat of the famed Magic: The Gathering. The article was supposedly even edited a few times by the actual designer of the game, although his limited knowledge of Wikipedia made it look more like vandalism and less like a useful edit. I'm not sure how to establish notability of a game; does it have to reach certain sales figures before its notable? I have several old decks of the cards at my home; I can't have been the only one to buy it. --Slordak (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability guidelines and Reliable sources guidelines will help. Wikis and other user-edited sources are usually not acceptable. Resale sites are usually trying to sell you the item, so aren't all that independent. The book source currently listed is a buyers guide, and really only shows that the game existed. What we need is reliable, verifiable coverage that is independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book in question contains description and analysis - it is effectively an encyclopedia of CCGs. For this game, there's an essay of about 1000 words by Ian Lee, which discusses its mechanics and compares them with other CCGs such as Magic and Shadowfist. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using google to search for the game title and publisher got a number of reviews and mentions. I think it's at least somewhat notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:V; it's referenced: WorldCat Search Results Showing widespread library holdings of Reference. By the way, evidence strongly suggests that DarkAudit made this AfD in bad faith, nominating it merely out of spite (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9). --Firefly322 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no consensus on the previous AfD a month ago. It's not my fault that only one other person participated, or that the closing admin chose not to relist as is the usual course of action in cases like that. Anyway, you can't prove a negative, so all I can say is WP:AGF. DarkAudit (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its definitely not the worst around and can be improved with either a couple more citations or just remove the parts that are marked as citation needed. Mathman1550 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 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. Also, Black Monday (2008) already redirects back to this article. GlassCobra 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008 stock market volatility[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article consists entirely of contemporary market commentary with little or no evidence of lasting economic significance. Fails per WP:RECENT. Ronnotel (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like a good article to me. Certainly it might be merged into another article at some point, but for now this was a significant event with quite a bit of coverage. Mackan79 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my point is that there will always be contemporanious coverage of the market - hundreds of articles a day in the business press. What would make this article notable would be commentary written about the event weeks or even months afterwards. Ronnotel (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Some people got richer and some people got poorer in a world-wide finance panic *:::Yes, that's a better search. Of more relevance is the news search, where I see two hits - from an Indian source. Still not sure that establishes notability - perhaps the article should be renamed to that date. Ronnotel (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)that resulted in governments having an emergency lowering of interest rates and France in particular being made aware of its inadequate banking investment regulations. All this in the context of a world-wide housing bubble burst and lack of liquidity in the home loan finance market. The reverberations of that Black Monday in Jan 2008 continue as we speak. <sarcasm> On the other hand, the stock market has completely recovered from the Great Depression and World War Two. Let's delete those articles. We will always have wars. What makes old historical wars like WWII important or relevant to me? Pokemon is obviously relevant so let's keep that. But billions of dollars lost in the stock market in the past? Who cares so long as the current value of Dow Jones is now recovered? Besides, its all about icky stuff like numbers and money instead of cool stuff like entertainment. </sarcasm> WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes previous financial panics notable, as with everything else at WP, are reliable sources describing the event. The phrase "January 2008 stock market volatility" draws exactly 9 hits on Google - 4 of which are related to the WP page itself. This page needs some non-contemporaneous citations to be notable. Ronnotel (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try something like this Google search instead, oh just 40000 hits. even if half of those results has nothing to do with this particular event, then 20000 is still quite a lot don't you think? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a better search term. However, of more relevance is the news search, which returns two hits, both from an Indian source. Perhaps the name of the article should be changed to January 21st 2008 stock market volatility, which may have a better chance of being notable. Ronnotel (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title should be changed. I recommend Black Monday (January 2008). WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object provided there was a reliable source to substantiate the name. Ronnotel (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first paragraph of the article and its sources. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every claim in the article is backed by a published reliable source. "This page needs some non-contemporaneous citations to be notable" is false. Where did you get that bizarre notion? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, WP:RECENT for a start. Ronnotel (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay. Not a policy. Not a guideline. And if it does say what you just said then it is a bad essay. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's WP:RECENT, but it's also pretty significant. I would prefer that this be merged into a broader article on the 2008 recession or the 2006-on finance crunch but there is no reason to delete this. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - The main problem with this article was when it was recent and it was being claimed in the article that there was a stock market crash going on. This was a major POV problem, since there wasn't a stock market crash going on. When the US market opened on Tuesday it closed down a bit over 1% - The WSJ had an article today about the market for this quarter - over half the days were up or down over 1% (and I don't think this is a record). Please notice that the market is up from that Tuesday. There was no crash, nothing that deserved the name "Black Monday" - I wouldn't call it a normal day - but if you look back over the last 5 years, there were probably 10-15 days of equal significance, e.g. the "Bear Stearns Friday" that happened a couple of weeks ago was probably at least as important.

There were news sources in the article - e.g. Al Jezera and the Scotsman - screaming about a Black Monday. They were wrong and they look pretty foolish now. The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and the Economist of course had some words about the market action, but were not screaming about a market crash. We've got to have truly reliable sources on this, somebody is always hyping or screaming about something in financial markets. We can not pass along third rate market commentary claiming that there's a crash going on. People's money is a stake. We should be ashamed of the panic pushing that was in this article.

There's no way that Wikipedia can offer commentary on this type of event. There certainly is no way that we should be panic pushing the way we were on that article, making predictions, etc. The article has essentially been stripped of it's POV now - but essentially nothing is left "The market went down, the market went up, the market went down, the market went up,..." That about covers it. Why do we want such an article in an encyclopedia? Nobody is going to read it Smallbones (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, your claims are inaccurate and US-centric. You talk of "the market" as if there were only one market. The financial world is far more complex than you realize and that black Monday had effects that are still being felt. Do you know anything about Chinese stock markets? Housing derivatives? US government interest rates? Your original research here is childish and ignorant. Don't delete articles beyond your education. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [5] and WP:NPA. Smallbones (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparently in response to the fall in non-U.S. markets, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced a surprise rate cut of 0.75% on Tuesday at 8 a.m." - do you suggest that the US interest rate was not affected? Do you claim that it is not still affected? Other effects also continue to exist. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if this and Bear Stearns Friday (if that is what anyone has called it) are eventually discussed in the same article. Otherwise it seems we should avoid the POV, but I think articles on events like these are a good feature of Wikipedia. A related article is Subprime mortgage crisis, but I don't think this article could be merged into there.Mackan79 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RECENT (yes, I read right to the end)

Just wait and see. Editors writing today do not have an historical perspective on events that are going on today, and should not pretend to. It is perfectly fine to write about ongoing events with an eye towards benefiting future readers, but without attempting to prejudge what will be regarded as historically important ten (or 100) years from now.

Seems sensible to me. This event was front-page news for several days in what I read, and is still being mentioned regularly in relation to current economic events. If at a future point it is more appropriate to either rewrite the article or merge into an article of wider scope or delete it then so be it. People at the moment are reading about this elsewhere and might want information here. Let's leave it for now - there's no rush.

It's also a little peculiar to use an essay rather than a guideline or policy to quickly justify a deletion - especially an essay which is as notably equivocal on the subject as WP:RECENT, and whose most prominently mentioned test-case [6] resulted in the opposite decision to that the proposer wants here. But that's their prerogative. Knepflerle (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is already a "Subprime crisis impact timeline" article where this information could be added. Like Morgan said, markets are guaranteed to fluctuate, it would be a bad precedent if fluctuations in and of themselves could be considered encyclopedic. WillOakland (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Subprime crisis impact timeline, but actually the more similar article appears to be Economic crisis of 2008. Perhaps this article could be merged with the latter, although I'm still not sure it makes sense to put things together in that way so soon (or to delete). WP:Recentism notwithstanding, I think maybe it's best to treat these events as they are, and combine them only when it's clear the commentators have done so. Mackan79 (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the fluctuation in the market has little effect in the long-term, the unusual amount of concern, comment and coverage it received at the time is notable, verifiable and sourced. Markets do indeed flucuate, and almost none of the fluctuations cause massive changes in the confidence of commentators like this one did. Knepflerle (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Economic crisis of 2008, as they're clearly on the same subject; even just three months later, this article already shows very little long-term notability, and what little there is can be merged into that article. Terraxos (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while everybody was discussing here whether a 1.1% drop in the Dow was a world wide financial panic (to quote from above) nobody seemed to notice that the Dow was up 3.2% yesterday (390+ points). According to today's WSJ "Tuesday's gain was the third gain of 390 points or more in less than a month" and there were three other 300+ daily gains since September. My point is not that we should cover and give commentary on all these days. Very likely we should not cover any of these days - and we certainly shouldn't give market commentary or make predictions on them. If we don't cover 3%+ days we shouldn't cover -1.1% days. I'd be a bit more accomadating if there were some after-the-event commentary in reliable financial news sources saying that this day was significant, but I suspect all that they would say is "boy, wasn't that nothing." Waiting to see whether something else will happen to make this day appear significant is simply against WP:Crystal. There seems to be some consensus starting to emerge for merge, and I wouldn't argue against this, but the end result will be that very little gets merged. Smallbones (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the difference is the amount of high-profile concern from commentators in every news outlet in the January case, and the absence in the case of yesterday. It's the highly-reported crisis of confidence that is notable, even if you feel that crisis was unjustified. Knepflerle (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Smallbones, your inability to read is amazing. You say "a 1.1% drop in the Dow was a world wide financial panic (to quote from above)". Are you unable to comprehend or are you trolling or paid by the finance industry? Where does the article say what you just said? It does not. I did not. The panic DID NOT CONSIST OF THE DOW'S CHANGES. The article is not about the Dow's changes. The Dow numbers are only relevant for showing the limits of the panic and the success at lowered interest rates and other measures at restoring some degree of confidence. Confidence that is still shaky. Read the financial section of any day's newspaper. Read the political speeches. Why is Bush saying he is going to restructure the financial sector? Can you guess? Could it be there are problems? Problems that manifested themselves in a world wide panic in January sparking this latest round of emergency confidence building measures. And you are trying to claim "nothing to see here ... move along". Please. Save it for the sheep. We don't know what will happen next and it is not Wikipedia's job to forecast ; but the panic happened. It was real. Its effects are still with us. It does not become important or unimportant depending on what the Dow does or does not do. Any more than a battle in a war becomes important or unimportant based on who eventually wins. The people in the battle are just as dead no matter who eventually wins. And the winners and the losers in that panic still won and lost regardless of what the markets do or don't do in the future. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat:Please see [7] and WP:NPA. There is no reason for your personal attacks. I'll suggest that you just leave this page, after you apologize. We've both had our say. Smallbones (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the FTSE 100 and BSE Sensex had the biggest falls in their history - only presenting it in terms of the Dow is very misleading. -Halo (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or if we really have to, merge into Economic crisis of 2008. Record loses on multiple foreign exchange markets, a FED rate cut that "saved" the dow jones (which was 5% down in pre rate-cut trading). Like Bear Sterns and the Societe General, shapeshifting moments in the trading of this first quarter of 2008. Besides, negative events always get much more coverage and general interest than positive effects on the markets. We have a navbox full of "Black mondays" but I've never heard anyone talk about "Green mondays" or something when markets make record profits. As such Smallbones' argument "we don't write about 3+% gains either" is irrelevant. No one does, positive news is almost never interesting. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Economic crisis of 2008. The January crisis was certainly important, but since the aftermath is continuing, I see no reason why the article should stand on its own. Further, a lot of the prose is of the form "on day X market Y fell by Z points"; this should be condensed into a table. Andareed (talk) 19:13, 3 April 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. GlassCobra 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusz Skutnik[edit]

Is he a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no, he isn't Dreamspy (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of search results for the name are about a flash developer, who doesn't seem particularly notable himself either. No news hits from Google and my academic searches. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete His flash games have gotten quite a following, and some of which are listed on wikipedia (the submachine series), also his comics are reasonably well known in Poland, and there is a polish article on those comics (Rewolucje). Not to mention in the list of other Polish comic artists, some polish comic artists also have their own page, however outside of Poland or less known than Mateusz is, because of his online activities. Zephirius Jixx (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - an average developer. Laudak (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 14:23, 2 April 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. Black Kite 09:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manheim Township Performing Arts[edit]

Non-notable high school club, completely fails WP:V. While consensus broadly holds that high schools are notable, there is no such pass for high school clubs. There are only 25 Google hits for the organization, the lead hits being its own webpage, this Wikipedia article and various Wiki mirrors. There is not a single hit even for local newspaper calendar sections, which one might expect. Having performed in plays and musicals in high school myself, I'm sympathetic, but there's just no there there. RGTraynor 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, high school clubs are all but never notable outside their WP:LOCAL area, assuming they have any public profile at all. --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 1 April 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. Meets WP:ATHLETE (professional league) standard, and more stringent WP:BASEBALL (minor league all-star) standard. Sourcing seems adequate and reliable. No other reasons for deletion given. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Heether[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Fails notability requirements at WP:BASEBALL, in that he has not played a game in Major League Baseball, has not played a full season in the minors at the AAA level (he's just been promoted to AAA at this writing), hasn't won any big minor-league awards and hasn't been named to a noted minor league all-star team. He may be notable at the end of this season if he lasts the whole year at AAA, or sooner if he gets called up to the big leagues, but he isn't now. The guidelines are very specific, and Heether does not yet meet any of the applicable criteria. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, for the above reasons, exactly why I originally nominated for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He has received coverange independent of the source. Also, he HAS been named to a minor league all-star team. He was named to the 2005 Florida State League All-Star team. He was also named the Southern League batter of the week twice in 2007. [8] -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Be aware the the "notability requirements" at WP:BASEBALL are part of a guideline or suggestion, not a stringent requirement. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but they are widely applied to all articles about baseball players. Wish you had posted something about the Folorida State League all-star team, as that may have kept me from nominating him. It's still borderline, though, so I'll let this discussion run its course. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that WP:BASEBALL is a WikiProject. Their requirements are by no means Wikipedia poicy. However, Heether is subject to WP:BIO. He is mentioned on MLB.com a few times: [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Here's a short bio [13] and a CBS Sports bio [14]. He's mentioned here in the Brewer's section as a possible fantasy pick [15]. Those are a few sources that could be put into the article to establish notability. --Cyrus Andiron 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as User:ukexpat. It is not notable enough. More need to prove notability. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor-league All-Stars are notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User talk:Hit bull, win steak and User Talk:Cyrus Andiron rational. Callelinea (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [16] and [17]. I believe this fails WP:ATHLETE. Yes, highest amateur level of a competitor, but no secondary sources. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there aren't any GNews results for him if you use his middle name; that's not the name he commonly uses. There aren't too many results for "Manuel Aristides (Onelcida) Ramirez" either, but that doesn't mean that Manny Ramirez isn't notable. If you just look for "Adam Heether" + baseball, you get 130+ news mentions of him, and that doesn't include sources that aren't indexed by GNews (like Baseball America, or the various annual prospect handbooks). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He does meet the first bullet at WP:ATHLETE: Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. He has been playing in fully pro leagues for five years. Also, try that search again, but leave out his middle name: [18]. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Third party coverage, plays in a professional league, minor league all-star - is there some requirement for notability he's not meeting? I can't understand why this was even nominated for deletion. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The all-star team award wasn't a part of the article and wasn't made known until after the nomination - see my remarks above regarding that. Having said that, all minor league players play in fully-professional leagues (with the possible of some independent leagues outside of the official MLB farm system), and I don't think anyone believes that all minor leaguers are notable. While WP:BASEBALL is not an official policy per se, it is a widely-followed guideline as to the specific notability of baseball players, and it is is more specific and more restrictive than WP:ATHLETE. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person has not received any notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them; he has not made any widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the minors. Or is every minor league ball player notable if he makes an all star team in Florida? Triple3D (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The standard for WP:BIO requires that a person has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and Heether meets that standard. The standard for WP:ATHLETE requires that a person has played in a professional league which Heether has done. One of the standards for notability by WP:BASEBALL standards is selection to a minor league all star team. He has met that. He meets the standards as they are written. If you have a problem with the standards, work to get them changed. Until they are, this article has met all existing standards. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:37, 7 April 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. per WP:NEO, does not appear to be widely used. Black Kite 09:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noshoring[edit]

Non-notable neologism. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your due diligence, but I did find more references to it online. Perhaps search under "noshore" and "no shore" as well. After all, every term, at some time, can be considered a neologism. Casper SSLLC (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NEO. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are handfuls of references, but zippo in Google News Archive does not ensure confidence it is a widely-used business term. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Under WP:NEO.
Keep Found more references to it: http://www-b.informatik.uni-hannover.de/emisa/OLDA05/msg00002.html and http://www.stratvantage.com/news/062805.htm#1. It appears to be a business term in the same way in which nearshoring and offshoring are. Casper SSLLC (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:24, 3 April 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 (kept by default). A few merge suggestions, so I opened a merge discussion - Nabla (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth (Ace Combat)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe plot repetition of information in Ace Combat articles. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT: almost entirely in-universe, no evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate Ace Combat article. If the information is already available elsewhere, then delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Quite notable and really helps understand the Ace Combat universe. I firmly believe an outsider would have a far more difficult time understanding the universe without this article. --Armanalp (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repetition of plot details (WP:NOT#PLOT) mixed with a list of locations (which have little relevance to gameplay) in an article which does not stand as a notable topic. This genre of games does not lend itself to a world or locations article at all. Players don't pick up Ace Combat games thinking "great, more adventures on an alternative earth", "Eat my sidewinder, punk" is the game's hook. Someone another 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Having just picked up my first Ace Combat game I found the article extremely helpful. I must disagree with Someone another, I and many others enjoy lore, background, etc with any aspect of entertainment and this article allowed me to appreciate the series more then I would have been able to before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.108.242 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is policy, not guideline. "Usefulness" is a depreciated argument. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep really well put together article with lots of references and even more published references easily available to anyone who wants to improve the article further. Has notability to people in the real world. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actually, could be merged to Ace Combat series page nicely as that page is only 10kb and could absorb this easily. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Armanalp OR Casliber. the_ed 17 14:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#PLOT. Not an immensely relevant part of the series to warrant an article, and it asserts no notability through sources independent of the topic material. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:06, 5 April 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 redirected to Dog hybrid. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shihpom[edit]

Delete unsoucred article about a dog cross-breed. There are dozens, hundreds? of dog breeds, making hundreds or thousands of cross-breeds possible, and when we consider the various admixtures that can be achieved, thousands or millions more. This one, as most, is not-notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected to dog hybrid, like all the rest. No substantial editing on the article in the eight months it's existed, so it's not as though we're losing anything here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:37, 1 April 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. No reliable third-party sources to back up claims of notability. Black Kite 08:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Choo[edit]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, fails WP:N, fails WP:V. There are no reliable sources that attest to the notability of this individual. The entire article is "sourced" by YouTube and his bio for a speaking engagement, which does not constitute reliability or independence. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable --Starionwolf (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If he'd received some news coverage for his antics he would be notable, but none of the references bear this out (the references are dannychoo.com or YouTube links that appear to be from Choo, as the user name is TokyoStormtrooper). JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable blogger. Referenced and well-organized article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable blogger. DannyChoo.com is one of the most popular blogs in the world — especially in Asia — and one of the most visited websites, period. The Tokyo Dance Trooper has cult popularity, and two of the sources come from StarWars.com, which is a significant endorsement. Only a minor celebrity, but I wouldn't want to set the bar much higher than this. DOSGuy (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. No reasonable adduction of notability as evidenced by the trivial references above made by DOSGuy, which (imho) demonstrate clear failure of WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs more explain why it is notable, it currently only just passes WP:BIO. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is completely sourced by blogs, youtube, and Danny Choo himself. Those are hardly resounding endorsements and clearly not reliable sources. Thus, he fails WP:BIO. The assertion that the article is sourced from StarWars.com is misleading. It comes from a blog. Not quite the same. That's like sourcing a user's blog from ESPN.com and calling it legitimate because it came from ESPN.com. --Cyrus Andiron 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Editor already indicated keep above I'm not sure what the last poster is talking about. There are no primary sources, so none of these claims come from Danny Choo himself. (Number of times viewed is not a claim that Danny Choo made as TokyoStormtrooper, but a record kept by YouTube.) None of the sources come from personal blogs, either. The Official StarWars.com Blog is the official blog of StarWars.com, and it has a StarWars.com address. It's really not like a user's blog from ESPN.com. It's more like if someone posted an entry on ESPN.com's official blog, and ESPN's visitors liked it so much that it became the most popular entry for a while. (Does ESPN have a blog?) At any rate, the point of the reference is that the Tokyo Dance Trooper is such a hit among the Star Wars community that it reached the top of the offical StarWars.com blog. Anyway, I don't have a lot to add to what I said before. Danny Choo is a minor celebrity, and I'm not comfortable setting the bar much higher than this. DOSGuy (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the sources is DannyChoo.com. At the very least he's affiliated with the site. That's what I was talking about. --Cyrus Andiron 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of significant coverage of Danny Choo as a person can be found. A google search found mentions of him and his website in blogs, etc., but nothing to satisfy requirements for notability and reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Calling his "the most popular blog in Asia" represents a grossly Anglocentric view of the world. The article is written primarily based on self-published sources, and the independent sources cited do not rise to the level of "non-trivial coverage" --- whether or not the Star Wars blog, Akihabara News, etc. counts as WP:RS, they're less than five lines long. cab (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: transwiki'd to Wookieepedia, here. Not sure if the community will keep it there, but we'll see. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He might be too general. He's the son of a famous shoe designer and host of a popular Otaku blog. The Tokyo Storm Trooper stuff might survive, but other aspects of his celebrity aren't sufficiently Star Wars-related. DOSGuy (talk) 23:27, 4 April 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 closure). No delete comments besides nominator. Skomorokh 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lohmann chicken[edit]

Delete no sources or other indication that this chicken is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Lohmann brown, to distinguish the chicken from the company. There seems to be plenty of material available to write an encyclopaedic article about this breed, which is apparently significant in the dairy industry. A Google search for "Lohmann Brown" turns up some good sources, such as this company site and this research paper into mortality. I think this is notable enough. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the above sources. However, none of my half-dozen chicken books mention the breed and I've never heard of it. But there is source material to create a decent stub. VanTucky 02:52, 2 April 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. Black Kite 08:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sectus[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a school get together with Harry Potter fans. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; as the article says, it was an unofficial gathering. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:N – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 22:00, 1 April 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008 in India[edit]

Delete having month by month articles for countries is a bad idea, this unsourced WP:CRYSTALBALLISM is likely what would result, let's nip this in the bud. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a very bad idea. Punkmorten (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont agree with it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, a bad idea, and one line of crystalballery. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 20:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, about the future (WP:CRYSTAL), and if these are truly notable events they can be added to date lists elsewhere and/or the country page. Earthdirt (talk) 02:32, 6 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erwan[edit]

Delete nothing to suggest that this unsourced given name article is noteworthy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No content, no hope. —BradV 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Non-article Dreamspy (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:20, 6 April 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 unanimous responses. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madoka Mako[edit]

I see no assertion that complies with WP:BIO. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitively asserts notability: "was known as the most prominent Christian mangaka in Japan," and even has a source for that statement. The fact that the subject is covered at all in English strongly suggests further sources can be found in Japanese. Keep, tag for notability and needing additional sorces, and remand to the Japan and Manga wikiprojects. If additional sources aren't found in a more reasonable timeframe than 2 minutes after creation, THEN we can revisit the issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad fatih nomination - this article was AfD'ed TWO MINUTES after the article was created. This sort of bullshit was why I left wikipedia the first time in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.95.231 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Anon is correct that it was AfDed two minutes after creation. It needs time to be edited. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep give it a chance Dreamspy (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found +830 hits in Google (Japanese). Where's the not notability? Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is defined by coverage in independent secondary sources, not GHits consisting of booksellers and blogs. I am very mildly amenable to a "speedy keep", but on the grounds of WP:BITE, not poor keep arguments like this. cab (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Japanese search on the pen name does confirm the existence of the comics claimed in the source Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, e.g. Manga History of Christianity in Japan [19]. However, it does not show any evidence of reliable, independent sources, just booksellers and blogs. Same for searching on the titles of what appear to be her better-known works: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article asserts notability and has several sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has one source, a website set up by some company, claiming itself to be authoritative ("the WWW's original and most complete site"). cab (talk) 05:58, 2 April 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. Whilst the merits of each version can be debated, there is no doubt that the sources are available to write an encyclopedic article on this subject. Black Kite 08:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communist propaganda[edit]

Nominated by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC). See his rationale somewhat below. `'Míkka >t[reply]

Comment for late comers, amazed by the degree of militant ignorance expessed by several otherwise apparently smart people, I started a complete, total rewrite of the article, despite the fact that I am a far cry from being a trained politologist. Therefore the votes and opinions expressed below are related to this version. `'Míkka >t 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is a POV-fork. The concept of "propaganda" is conflated with various irrelevant facts and the article constitutes several WP:SYN. The article uses several biased sources like Robert Conquest, David Satter who are well know for anti-communist activities. The Black Book of Communism is a horribly biased and staunch anti-Communist source. Overall the article is full of quotes from some books and opinions of some biased academics, and the western concept of "propaganda" is conflated with different irrelevant political and ideological activities. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added note: There is a separate section in the article "Use of Marxist ideology". It is ridiculously POV. Marxism is conflated with the concept of "propaganda". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to nominator: POV fork of what? It is not fork of agitprop as was mentioned in the article talk page. "Agitprop" is (or should be) an article about an organization. `'Míkka >t 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork of the article Propaganda. Anything worthy to be mentioned can be included there. And listen to the other concerns addressed here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sources you cite above have been crticized as biased but has also received a widely positive reception in the Western scholarship. They are quite reliable per WP:RS. And I completely agree with Mikka - a POV fork of what? Propaganda? Certainly not, it is just a very valid subarticle. PS. "Western concept of propaganda"? I am pretty sure that the concept was quite well known in the east (and south, and north, for that matter :).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any answer to the concern that Marxism is conflated with the term "propaganda". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is hardly comprehensive and free of errors. The need to rewrite and expand does not mean we should delete it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and redir to agitprop, i'm copying a message i left on the article talk page here: "This article should be converted into a redirect to agit-prop. At this point is simply a ranting pov-fork, and I cannot see how any major piece of material of the present state of this article could fit into a encyclopedia. It is remarkable that there is an article titled 'communist propaganda', which hardly decicates a single line to the subject 'communist propaganda' (the correct title of the current material would be some things I don't like about communism). The editors need to understand that 'propaganda' in this case of communism is not to be understood in the connotation of the word propaganda in current Western usage. 'Communist propaganda' was a political methodology of mass communication developed by the Bolshevik Party and the Communist International, which has had a deep impact on mass communications, far outside of the communist movement. It cannot be reduced to 'censorship'." --Soman (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No can do. Agitprop was an organization. Communist propaganda was what Agitprop did. We don't redirect communism to communist party, do we? `'Míkka>t 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, agitprop is a method that happened to be named after a department.--Relata refero (disp.) 11:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/cleanup/expand, move most of content to Propaganda in the Soviet Union. `'Míkka>t 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You need to justify your "keep" vote. The article has concerns with RS and WP:SYN. Marxism is conflated with the concept of "propaganda". You need to address these issues. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your nomination is misguided. "Cleanup/expand" is the way to address the issues. `'Míkka>t 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you need to explain why in this case. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A good start of an article on an extremely notable subject (!!). Agitprop is something quite different, btw.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A rather bad, amateurish start, beginning with wrong definition (replaced). `'Míkka >t 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:GOOGLE is not the way to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google Print, not Google. Try Scholar too. Nuff said.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, except using a term does not make it a subject for an article. Which is why there are many common terms that do not have articles, as I pointed out to you repeatedly on the talkpage. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has extremely poor research skills. There are quite a few books which specifically discuss communist propaganda from both extremely polarized POVs: communist and anti-Communist. You may start form reading "Communist propaganda techniques" by John C. Clews. Very interesting. `'Míkka>t 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mikka, I will not be the first person to remark that what you lack in civility you frequently do not make up in perspicacity. The title of that 1964 book notwithstanding, it focuses on Soviet techniques, which are, as has been pointed out frequently since then, completely different from other forms of propaganda techniques. If you pride yourself on your research abilities, find something a little less Cold War and that addresses the purported subject directly. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cold war or hot war, it does not matter as long as the source provides facts and examples. As for civility, I see no reason why I can address extremely poor research skills of the nominator. The fact that the article quotes mostly anti-communists is simply because the article is unfinished. There are plenty of communist sources which describe the purpose of communist propaganda. It is just Western people thoroughly dislike them and dismiss as... communist propaganda. As for your challenge ("if you pride yourself...") -- yes, I can proudly say yes I pride myself and I dont fill wikipedia with biased bullshit, nor I censor it on a whim. But you see, I have life too. This is a serious subject. If you look into the talk page of the article, you will see I noticed its weakness way before you all. But I cannot fill all gaps in wikipedia myself, I am very sorry. Keep on making more gaps; it will keep me busy. `'Míkka >t 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mikka. There is an enormous amount of scholarly research on the topic, including plenty of reliable popular books on the subject. This subject meets all Wikipedia criteria. Noroton (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Name two that make it clear that they discuss this subject particularly, as opposed to Soviet propaganda or Chinese propaganda or Comintern propaganda or Stalinist propaganda or Cuban propaganda. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am really surprised. We have whole Category:Communist propaganda which is a part of a bigger Category:Propaganda. Communist propaganda is a notable phenomenon described in thousands publications. I agree with Mikkalai that Propaganda in the Soviet Union should be improved, partly using content of this article, but this has nothing to do with deletion.Biophys (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you suggest taking the category to CfD? Because then your objection will be removed, right? --Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - notable subject and plenty of reliable sources. Ostap 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, name two that make it clear that they discuss this subject particularly, as opposed to Soviet propaganda or Chinese propaganda or Comintern propaganda or Stalinist propaganda or Cuban propaganda. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I have lived 27 years under communist propaganda and I don't find any word in this article as exaggerated. If there'll be a problem with the AfD I can even contribute to this article with a lot of more samples with proper references supported by quotes by Lenin, but for now it is enough I think. However, some commie lovers may find it as too offensive for their agenda whatever it may be and as POV. For their benefit just a reminder: Someone's POV is not a valid reason to nominate a Wikipedia article with an AfD template. Lack of its notabiity is! greg park avenue (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Put any good elements to History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Do I sense some kind of propaganda wit hthis article? This is a serious violation of POV. Propaganda is part of life. It is called advertising, spread of ideas, etc. All the things the article uses to explain why "communist propaganda" is something special is a serious violation of POV. Which of the things that violate POV to mention first? "Use of Marxist ideology"? "Indoctrination of children"? "Propaganda of extermination"? If there is something interesting in this article certainly can be merged to History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. If someone wants to make its WP:POINT there are better ways this kind of articles.-- Magioladitis (talk)

Reply. This article is basically a stub and can be significantly expanded. Yes, it shows how Communist propaganda is different from other types of propaganda. You understood this right - the distinct features are "Use of Marxist ideology" for propaganda, and so on. There is nothing new or special about it. For example, Nazi propaganda also has certain distinct features. This is all based on reliable secondary sources, so I do not see any problems. If you think article is POV - add opposite sourced views on the Communist propaganda (e.g. views by Communists, CPSU, and so on.). Communist leaders openly emphasized the importance of their propaganda, which was considered a normal (not charged) term.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork; merge useful material into articles with more definite referents. csloat (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I admit I was somewhat disappointed in the article. But allegations of bias are not deletion material. The general concept of Communist propaganda should in fact be expanded with discussions of material which was claimed by non-Communists in certain circles to be "Communist propaganda"; or Communist plots like fluoridation or the metric system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Quite clearly POV Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP!--Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very nice but here we are discussing not just voting. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Comment WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:NOREASON. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was also disappointed at the Soviet-centric attitude of the article, as well as the tone that made it feel that a "capitalist pig" was writing the article. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of scholarly research on the subject, which allows it to pass notability. POV? Yes, definitely. Is that a reason for deletion? Not in this case, I believe. I wouldn't be against a merge, though, to other articles such as Agitprop. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, desrves its place in WP. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify your rationale why you are calling it "notable topic"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is not inherently POV and has been the subject of numerous scholarly works. POV issues in the article need to be cleaned up by editing, just like any other article. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am shocked to see nobody has mentioned about merging it under - Propaganda?! The Warsaw Pact countries were just one of the sides that used propaganda techniques. Let's face it, we all know that such "practice" was not only used by the "commies". TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many common features in propagandas of all sorts, and Propaganda article tells precisely about that. The idea of this article was to describe specific features of the "Communist propaganda" - per sources. For example, how is it different from the Nazi propaganda, or US propaganda? There are many publications about it.Biophys (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Repeated assertion is not a substitute for citation. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable form of propaganda. I don't think it's a POV fork, as similar articles could be written about Fascist propaganda, American propaganda, British propaganda, and so on; all would be acceptable subjects for articles. Terraxos (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC
- Yes, but Western propaganda? Covering all aspects of American, British and French propaganda? Sounds ridiculous? Now you get it. Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See what's been done with that bluelink/redirect? That's a model for what has to be done with this one. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notice how we have American propaganda. Most of the arguments are either IDONTLIKEIT or arguments that can be solved by other means (i.e, NPOV status of current article). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Propaganda in the Soviet Union is not up for deletion. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Topic of definite historical importance.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Topic of definite historical importance" - this is a fundumentally flawed argument. This one is WP:SOAP, WP:POV, WP:SYN. Wikipedia has article titled Propaganda in the Soviet Union for the historically important topic. Also feel free to create Propaganda in Cuba after finding some WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like an historically important article IMO. BigDunc (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT. Hope this has been a help to you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Use of strongly anti-communist POV text, complete with quotes. Only the existance of pages titled "Counter-Revolutionary Propaganda", "Anti-Communist propaganda" etc. can justify keeping this page. Srijon (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead, just find reliable sources, and I will gladly expand your text with details how people were shot or served 25 years of Gulag for pieces anti-Communist propaganda, such as this one: "Did you hear that now the Party has two wings: left wing and right wing too? -- Yes and I am wondering when it will take off and fly away to the hell." `'Míkka >t 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't understand how can we write something more than what is written in Agitprop and History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ans why can't we just retarget the article in one of these articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ignorance is not the reason for others to sit on their hands and write nothing. `'Míkka >t 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree -- my problem with this article (like its sister page Communist terrorism) is not that the phenomenon doesn't exist (in both cases, it surely does) -- it's that the phrase is not specific and is completely ambiguous. We have much more specific pages that actually describe encyclopedic concepts. The problem is POV-pushing editors who want to use Wikipedia as a platform to discredit broad political ideologies. That's really not an appropriate use of this forum, IMHO. csloat (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You have it upside down, colleague. Some ideologies quite successfully shot themselves in the foot way before wikipedia was born, and a purpose of a 'pedia is to document this feat. `'Míkka>t 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I see nothing here explaining that Wikipedia's purpose is to document such perceived foot-shooting, and I see several items here (particularly this and this that explicitly document that this is not Wikipedia's purpose. But I suppose that is the problem we get into when people confuse their point of view with documented reality. csloat (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject.Does exist, has legacy in former Soviet bloc, especially Russia, Belarus.--Molobo (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why wikipedia has the article Propaganda in the Soviet Union. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, but your list is incomplete. Unfortunately, the Communist propaganda is very much alive in all countries. It can also be found in many WP articles. Good users remove such propaganda [20] per WP policies.Biophys (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find some reliable sources and feel free to create Propaganda in Cuba. Propaganda in a country does not equal to what is here considered as "communist propaganda". The article documents propaganda in some countries, does not address the concept which is the title i.e. "communist propaganda". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You are right, and I did precisely that. The books by Conquest and "Black book" (reliable secondary sources) are telling about the "Communism" (including Communist propaganda) in general and discuss Soviet Union only as a specific example.Biophys (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Very notable subject. Yahel Guhan 05:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a plague on Wikipedia of, as csloat puts it, articles titled with weakly-defined referents, which are then used as soapboxes for whatever form of original research people with a bunch of different POVs turn up with a single Google search on the title phrase. This is a notable phrase, but not a notable scholarly subject, because nothing (or vanishingly little) has been written about what is common to propaganda from various communist countries, parties and communist organisations. I suggested on the talkpage using this as we should any such common phrase; replace with a disambiguation page pointing to our various real articles on the subject. Otherwise, it will inevitable turn into another pointlessly crappy page of inept original research of the type that bedevils these battlefield areas, the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia a joke in scholarly circles and much-loved in POV-pushing ones. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only two POVs on this topic: communist POV and anti-Communist POV. And communists gave plenty of reasons to make their opponent's POV strong. And I see no reasons why an article cannot cover them both while keeping original research out. What the article needs is a good plan and sketch as a foundation. The topic is really vast despite all your bitching. And the very vastness makes it difficult to start; even to locate a reasonably neutral source within the oceans of literature vast majority of which is anti-Communist. And little surprize in the latter fact: communism started as a wonderful idea, but its implementation turned into a dreadful nightmare Karl Marx failed to forsee. `'Míkka>t 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a great example of a false dichotomy. There are not "only two POVs" on this topic. And, if you read the comment you responded to, you would see that isn't the point being discussed here at all. The problem is that the phrase is not treated as a serious scholarly topic in itself, not that it isn't used or that the phenomenon doesn't exist. This isn't at all about whether communism was a "wonderful idea" or a "dreadful implementation" - you can go to the talk page of Communism and have a field day if you want to argue about that. But if you can only divide the world into pro-communist and anti-communist camps, I suppose I don't expect you to understand any of this. csloat (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a great example of red herring. (First, a side remark. Yes, there are all shadows of gray, but there is white and there is black. Unless you have a clear understanding what is white and what is black, you are doomed to write 32,767 articles for all possibe shadows of gray.) Now, to the point. I was talking about you denial of this article, not about how many ideologies and propagandas there are. Now, still further. I cannot cease to be amazed how a personal ignorance is a potent driving force even among apparently otherwise smart people. Yes, the phrase has long been treated and yes, by the two major POVs, whether you like it or not. `'Míkka>t 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Erm; what? csloat (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / split unredeemably vague subject matter. Fully endorse RR's comments above. <eleland/talkedits> 12:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable and important subject, widely discussed, it does/did exist, it's encyclopedic, and there is no other article on this exact topic. What more can you want in an article? Sometimes the real thing gets conflated with accusations of something being "communist propaganda", and like any charged subject there's a lot of opinion on the subject. When an article becomes POV the remedy is to restore balance and neutrality, not to delete the article for being controversial. Wikidemo (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, notable topic:

1940 hits in Google books [21]
6790 hits in Google scholar [22]

Martintg (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally didn't intend to even see how this was getting on, because I thought I've said enough, but seriously, I wish people would read arguments already raised and attempt to incorporate or refute them. Without that, its not really a helpful contribution to a discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said above "not a notable scholarly subject", 6790 Google scholar hits says you are wrong, Mr. Refero. Martintg (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6790 mentions of a particular phrase does not equal 6790 treatments of the phrase as a notable scholarly subject. How many of those mentions actually specifically define the phrase in a scholarly context? And, more importantly, do those definitions correspond to each other? I think the phrase is extremely non-specific; this would be a good thing to mention in this article but it doesn't merit its own. csloat (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep Multiple sources available. POV problems are no reason for deletion. the phrase "Soviet propaganda" bring up '243 books in WorldCat [23] . The actual subject heading used in libraries "Propaganda, Soviet" finds 3,438 books. Perhaps the ed. who commented on the GS search not being necessarily specific might like to examine a few of the three thousand references before even starting in on the periodical articles. Any imaginable library should have a few of them. DGG (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from someone who has read plenty of books and articles that address this topic. This article is called "Communist propaganda," not "Soviet propaganda." I can't speak for others who voted delete, but I'd have no problem with an article on "Soviet Propaganda," which is clear and specific. "Communist" propaganda, however, is not clear or specific, and the grouping of various kinds of propaganda here is artificial and smacks of WP:SYN. Based on your argument, you should be advocating a merge with Soviet propaganda, not a "strong keep." csloat (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think, as csloat points out, DGG has missed the point here a bit. Rather than repeating myself here and cluttering the place up, I've replied on his talkpage. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I searched on the wrong term--a somewhat narrower term, which does have a narrower focus, just as Rr says, and I demonstrate below. I repeated it on "communist propaganda" -- the exact phrase finds 797 books the subject heading "Propaganda, communist" has 3458 books. of these, 697 books have both subject headings assigned [24]. Rr is right, the subjects overlap only partially. And, again as Rr says, the phrase need not necessarily match the subject. The subject heading, though, is controlled vocabulary assigned by subject experts. Obviously the books under it will show various points of view, and the article needs to reflect it. Indeed the books on even the first screen of the subject search [25] reflect quite a range of political positions and approaches to the subject. I understand what Rr is saying, that the article may to some extent confuse the two subjects, but despite the apparent facility of dealing with POV problems by deletion, such is not the right approach. DGG (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure WorldCat people count as subject experts... and further, if we were at CfD I would not be arguing like this. I have no objection to Category:Communist propaganda existing, and various articles being part of sub-categories of that category. The point is that we don't recognise WorldCat as a reliables source, and the various ranges of political positions one sees in the first of those screens are actually various different subjects. What I see in each case is specific titles, leading us to the source of the propaganda in each case: the Soviet machine, the GDR, the Comintern, etc.

Its really very simple: all one needs to find is a couple of texts that lays out a generally accepted theory of what "communist propaganda" entails that isn't actually talking about "Soviet propaganda" or "Chinese propaganda" or "Martin Luther King". (Page 2 of that WorldCat search - see what I mean about the doubtfulness of WorldCat's subject expertise?) If those are found, then this article has a non-OR existence aside from a basic disambiguation page. We should all concentrate on that. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and, again, neither my argument nor csloats nor several others on this page make any use of POV problems. Those are irrelevant to the fact that no article can be created here that does not have content that is original research. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepper Wikidemo and others."propaganda" is a value neutral word, even the Pope has his Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, as is "Communist" - if you know what they are you may or may not like them, but it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is no reason to delete. Shyamsunder 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere is the claim being made that the title is inherently non-neutral. The reasons for deletion are laid out above, and none of them focus on possible non-neutrality of the title. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Propaganda is not POV, it's a truth; this is an incredibly well known subject that looks incredibly bad; and a merge is unacceptable, as Communist Propaganda is not the same as Soviet Propaganda or Maoist Propaganda. Editor of the wiki 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. "The proletaries of all world get united!" - that was a motto of communist propaganda and was universal. Another quote by Lenin in free translation: "If one still doesn't follow my idea, he should be locked in a cage as some Australian kangaroo and shown to people as an example". greg park avenue (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm; all you're illustrating is your ignorance of the meaning of the word "propaganda," not to mention "Communism." I'm done here. csloat (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There is little argument that Communist propaganda is a recognizable, notable aspect of propaganda as a whole. The topic clearly deserves its own article. It just needs a bit of a cleanup. -- Hux (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't disagree that Communist propaganda is something real and I don't think we disagree with that. GHit's are useless. I just say that the article for communist propaganda can be covered by Agit-Prop and History of the CPSU. Secondly, I don't think that propaganda in general is something bad. It's a way to spread ideas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whose ideas the communism propaganda you want to spread. Those by John Lennon in his song Imagine I wouldn't mind a bit, but those spread by such a simpleton and criminal like Lenin lead to many wars and took millions of innocent lives starting with two millions starved to death kids - so called bezprizornyje - just after Revolution in Ukraine only. Still many Russians would disagree. This propaganda has been implanted into their brain so deeply, they revere Lenin until this very day as almost God and would say somehow sarcastically the way only Russians can do: He (Lenin) wanted good but it came out (business) as usual. greg park avenue (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "communist propagada" as applies to Lenno's song is nothing but label, possibly ironic. Mukadderat (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes related to the fresh version[edit]

Comment for late comers, amazed by the degree of militant ignorance expessed by several otherwise apparently smart people, I started a complete, total rewrite of the article, despite the fact that I am a far cry from being a trained politologist. Therefore the votes and opinions expressed above are related to this version. `'Míkka >t 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still. The AfD debate is about the propriety of the article itself, not about your attempt to improve it. csloat (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <Shrug> You probably cannot read, only write. I did not "improve" it. I wrote it anew 100% based on sources which specifically and exaclty speak about communist propaganda in its direct and general meaning. `'Míkka>t 22:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If your changes did not improve the article, why did you bother? It doesn't matter - my point stands. This AfD is about the propriety of the article itself, not your attempt to improve it or "write it anew." And please see WP:CIVIL -- personal attacks such as the above are really unwelcome here. csloat (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, disembodied article in present version, free from any traces of POV, almost sterile one. Mikka even discarded my suggestion to include Maximilien Robespierre as the grandfather of the communist propaganda, because he found it poorly referenced by Paul Feval's novel Le Chevalier De Lagardère. greg park avenue (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkalai was right to remove the link to Robespierre and I've removed the other two French Revolution references you added. As I said in the edit comment: revolutionary France predates the advent of Communism by at least half a century. -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notwithstanding my vote for "keep" above. I reckon that this new version is significantly worse as an article than the previous one. -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous content is not deleted. It moved into a place where it actually belongs, Propaganda in the Soviet Union. I wasted a day of my life to go to a library to dig some useful books to start a reasonably strctured article on the important topic only to receive a slap in the face. `'Míkka>t 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am afraid that both sides are jumping at conclusions amid a process without looking into what's actually happening. I don't think Hix had an intention to offend you. Indeed, the content of the current article is less rich. But the former content indeed did not belong to artcle of general topic. Mukadderat (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Methinks Mikka ought to read WP:OWN. csloat (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand. Mukadderat (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. I suspect that opinons to delete this article were based on the fact that the term "communist propaganda" had lost its actuality today afer the collapse of the Soviet Union and no on really does any research on this topic. Indeed, I don't see any new books on the topic. May be I am looking not very well. Mukadderat (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article despite its drawbacks is based on scholarly valid references sufficient to demonstrate that indeed the term is not an arbitrary collocation, such as shameless propaganda, massive propaganda. It is a category of propaganda with well-defined but sufficiently broad scope. Laudak (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deletion is not a way to solve POV / content disputes. Renata (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I hope the closing admin knows what he's doing. Relata refero (disp.) 12:03, 3 April 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. DS (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas' Law[edit]

Economic law proposed by one "Spencer R Lucas", which is likely an elaborate hoax. I can find no such economist mentioned elsewhere - <"Spencer Lucas" Cambridge> throws up only unrelated results [26]; and the entire article is thoroughly unreferenced. (The sole ref is to a pdf stashed in a university intranet which requires logging in.) Strong delete, unless references are found. Pegasus «C¦T» 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with your assessment. I found a lot of information of a highly notable economist named Robert Lucas, Jr. who published papers regarding the exogenous growth model in 1988. However, I can find nothing on this "law" or "extension" or an economist named "Spencer Lucas". -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are provided to prove that it actually exists. Terraxos (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring references. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this is absolutely a hoax. Not only does it lack references completely, but it is really, really confused from an economic perspective. I've seen a number of treatments and extensions of Solow's model for an open economy, and this doesn't follow any of them — indeed, it has a number of pretty serious modeling flaws, which indicate to me that it's not a notable concept. --Haemo (talk) 07:36, 4 April 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 --JForget 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Default city[edit]

Delete non encyclopedic unsourced oneliner about a neo- or protologism Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a unsourced, non-notable neoglism. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons above. Big Apple or Windy City it ain't. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Terraxos (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 speedy deletion is only for certain, specific things. Neoglisms, unfortunately, are not one of them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:24, 2 April 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. Bad faith nomination. Consider the importance of making your point via consensus and debate, as opposed to impulsively nominating another article to assert it. WilliamH (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone numbers in Thailand[edit]

Wikipedia is not a user guide. This article looks like a user guide on how to make phone calls in Thailand. Caytruc (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominated to make a POINT. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone numbers in Vietnam.) —BradV 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously notable and not without precedent: please check out Category:Telephone numbers by country. Edit: Speedy per above, I hadn't seen the previous AfD. Joshdboz (talk) 17:58, 1 April 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 --JForget 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chiles Law Society Banquet[edit]

Non-notable event, no reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Possible hoax. Jackie Chiles is a character on Seinfeld. This article is based on someone's blog. —BradV 17:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this may be eligible for speedy deletion (G3). —BradV 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, the banquet by itself would not merit an article; at most, the organization might if notability could be shown. --Russ (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I call hoax. JuJube (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; April Fools Joke Go to the EL in the footnote; that is indeed a photo of the Seinfeld character. It was created on the first of April. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 2 April 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 closure) Stong argument made that subject satifies WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hanson[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article, tagged for a long time and not fixed. Graevemoore (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources. WillOakland (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of at least 2 books on wine (see Amazon) which are apparently cited quite a bit (see Google Books). With notability established it's fine okay to use primary source info. Joshdboz (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a reference from the Times to the article, and Google news finds more sources from the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Independent, the Daily Telegraph etc. All top grade reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 3 April 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 given a total lack of delete preferences. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Kay-shan[edit]

The article itself asserts non-notability. He never opened a school, and taught only one student who then taught many people. The majority of the article is different ways to transcribe his name. RogueNinja_talk 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion - As stated during the original objection, yes the article could certainly use an expansion of content. However, your opening reasons don't make a lot of sense. You're describing just about everyone in the wing chun family tree until modern times. One to a handful of students, and no school. That's traditionally how it was done in Chinese arts, public schools with lots of students were not that common, and in this art didn't appear until Yip Man's time - before that, all training was private. Likewise, Yuen Kay San is a well known historical figure and branch of the art. By your supposed qualification, no historical figure in the family tree should have their own article here - including the mythical founder of this art, Yim Wing Chun (who had one student and no school). It seems that's your "thing" here, you mainly just go around nominating articles for deletion, but don't seem that familiar with the subject matter itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe none of them should have articles then. The founder? Sure, he actually did something notable - he founded a notable martial art. But random people who simply passed down the art? How are they notable? Anyway, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS RogueNinja_talk 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is the mythical founder of the art (modern historical research denotes a different origin) - this is what I was referring to about familiarity with the subject or lack thereof. Likewise with regards to the other people, who are not seen as "just random people who passed on the art". Nothing is random about passing on Chinese martial arts during that time, and you're equating a history and tradition to today's values of walking in to a commercial school, plopping down some cash, and becoming part of a "lineage". Likewise, nobody was stating "well these people have articles so this one should" per your attempt to throw in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and as a longstanding editor well familiar with the processes here I resent that implication. It was stating that by your qualifications and interpretations, nobody historical or notable would qualify for an article here, except for Yip Man. Likewise it was stated to predict you'd probably move on to the others as well, as that's your thing here, and lo and behold there you go suggesting it. If the situation was different, and any of these people were not historical figures, but modern no-name people who made up their own lineage/school/etc. and wanted an article on here, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you on the notability issue (and I'd probably throw in WP:ADVERTISING for good measure). Your interpretations on notability though are just that - your interpretations. And I suggest at this point to allow this process to do what its intended to do - generate consensus for one direction or another. Other people actually familiar with the subject matter will weigh in. In the mean time, later tonight (I have to head out the door) I'll flesh out the article with more content, references, etc. so at least that issue is out of the way. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really it looks like a case where all these master's should be merged together into a 'history of' article rather than have their own pages each. That would seem much more suitable. Derekloffin (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean like this? RogueNinja_talk 02:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is when a historical figure/master represents a distinct branch beyond just a succession in lineage. I could see that with some of the other important historical figures (such as merging them in to an article covering important past figures), but not when you have a key figure that also doubles as a specific branch of the art. Yuan Kay San represents that, Yip Man represents that, there are several others as well. And even then, if a merge with appropriate redirects is called for, that's a far cry from nuking entire articles with AFD's and would have been better served with a simple proposal for a merger on an articles discussion page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shum Lung. JJL (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect Either to Shum Lung, or to an article on the branch as a whole, the exact name I'm not sure of. Something needs to be there, even if it's a redirect to Branches of Wing Chun. It needs expansion before its worth keeping it as an indipendent article. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You do both know that shum lung is about to be deleted, right? RogueNinja_talk 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why i said merge possibly into Branches of Wing Chun...--Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - to 'YKS branch wing chun' - I'm also surprised at the existance of WP:Hypocracy. Regardless of that, Marty's reasoning is completely sound. Kung Fu history is all Mr Miyagi/Danielsan, Obi-Wan/Luke, so you shouldn't cull articles based on the direct number of students. Regardless of all of that, unless there is more content than "joe (pronounced JOE) taught bob (prounced BOB). bob taught fred (pronounced FRED). Fred taught lots", then the article is redundant. I suspect that the obscurity of the subject means that there is little more known about YKS. I also know that if anyone would know, it would be Marty, and the fact that he hasn't added any more convinces me that the article isn't getting much bigger. Rpf (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually, I just haven't gotten around to it. There's a number of Chinese published references on him from the 70's and 80's that were translated (from New Martial Hero magazine) I was going to add. There's also coverage of that branch in Rene Ritchie's book Yuen Kay San Wing chun Kuen.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion - Yuan Kay-shan is a notable person in the Chinese martial arts community. Information about him has not been translated or make available in English - that is why the article remains a stub. There is enough information within the Chinese literature to substain a page about Yuan. If someone like to translate the following links:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%98%AE%E5%A5%87%E5%B1%B1

http://www.21wulin.com/wulin/chuantong/1397.html

It will provide more information on Yuan.

In general, if a person is notable, they should have their own page. This will advance our goal for Wikipedia - to ensure that quality information is available to those that are interested. --Ottawakungfu (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, as previously promised, I went in and rewrote the article providing a lot more content in the process. Added a number of references as well. I'll do the same with Shum Lung this weekend. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion - I guess I was the original creator of the page. When I created it, it was a part of a series that linked together to form a "family tree" to show the wing chun history. If one of the nodes were deleted, the usefulness of the whole tree diminishes. It is a chicken and egg problem, by deleting each node individually, you can gradually justify the deletion of the whole tree later. You can kill a big structure by attacking its weakest parts. I put up the tree years ago, trying to establish a framework. If no one else was able to fill in the framework and preserve the tree or individual node of the tree, I have no ability to do anything more. I guess the best I can do is to cast a no vote and to emphasize the original intention of this article. Kowloonese (talk) 17:26, 6 April 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 It took him hours and hours to climb back to the top of the cliff, but from where he stood the view was remarkable Grutness...wha? 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball[edit]

This page is a clear violation of policy and a perfect example of what Wikipedia is not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC) UsaSatsui (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it looks like a perfectly good article to me, although it could use some references. Is this nomination an April Fools' Day prank? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd say that is a pretty good assumption. Useight (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ahhh...don't know what to say about this but Crystal balls in this capacity are Notable and can be referenced and have been a part of culture around the world. The article could use some more references and citations sure but I really don't think that this should have come to AfD. Hmmm.... but does it violate WP:CRYSTAL!?!?!? {smile}. Any others that feel this should maybe a speedy and close?--Pmedema (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CRYSTAL of course ;) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protest keep against canvassing AfDs per this. EJF (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we should leave it up to the article to predict its own AfD? Joshdboz (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are crystal balls what clairvoyants get when they're frustrated? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. It's what they get after swimming in cold pools. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the words of Patrick Wayne, "YOU WIN!!!" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the very epitome of what WP:CRYSTAL aims to keep out. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)The preceding user was already featured for an April Fools 2008 prank he perpetrated.[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, ignoring common WP:SENSE. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we do not define what a Crystal ball is, how can we base a Policy (yes, Policy) around the term? Clearly a notable term, well used in various media. Hopefully a April Fools Nomination. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve; clearly a very notable term and concept even if the article itself is lame. csloat (talk) 05:45, 3 April 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 closure). Skomorokh 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central obesity[edit]

Having removed the text that was taken up with slang terms, this article says very little that isn't covered in the Obesity article, to which I think it should be merged. The only references in the entire article were in the slang section; now that's gone there are none at all. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a good topic for an article (and has enough g-hits to indicate that it's a used term). I think there would be information that would be a better fit here than in Obesity (i.e. health problems specific to this type of obesity). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article as it stands isn't great, but it's an important (and particularly dangerous) sub-type of obesity which can be discussed in its own right - central obesity gets 14,000 Google Scholar hits, and the synonymous abdominal obesity gets another 17,000, which should be enough to be going on with. Perhaps WikiProject medicine can do something with it; a better indication of how it differs from generic obesity would be a good start. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close this AfD, and submit a merge proposal. AfD isn't the proper forum for merge proposals. The Transhumanist 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important type of obesity that deserves its own article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:12, 6 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone numbers in Vietnam[edit]

Wikipedia is not a user guide. This article looks like a user guide on how to make phone calls in Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdanh2002 (talk • contribs) 15:31, April 1, 2008

Speedy keep. This article needs to be rewritten, not deleted. Category:Telephone numbers by country contains nearly 100 examples of this information in Wikipedia, providing many examples of how this information should be presented. —BradV 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tone isn't great, but this looks like good information to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) contribs) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep So why don't you suggest the deletion of the topic like this Telephone numbers in Thailand? Wikipedia is not user guide, and that article is exactly a user guide of how to make a phone call in Thailand. Caytruc (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with much precedent (see Category:Telephone numbers by country). This isn't a phone book. Joshdboz (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a user guide, eh? Well tag it for a tone rewrite, there's no need to delete this. AfD is not cleanup. --Canley (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep The telephone system of Vietnam is a notable topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:00, 5 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flavor of Love (season 3)[edit]

Exceptionally low-quality page, no encyclopedic content, no independent sources, notability not asserted. Episode summaries are a violation of WP:NOT, filled with original research, and particularly poorly written. Rampant WP:MOS violations. Once all unencyclopedic content is removed, there's simply nothing left here to merge. Possibly these issues could be resolved with a ground-up rewrite but I seriously doubt it. Yamla (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a bit messy, and is borderline fancruft, but it seems like a good article that can be cleaned up. It's also only borderline OR; while somebody compiled this from watching the show, that lends to citing the show itself as a source (which is exactly what somebody did). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is WP:FANCRUFT but because I'm on the fence and stuck between keep and delete, I tend towards the Keep.--Pmedema (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has information that reveals information about the show which is relevant enough to warrant existance. It would be to busy to add in the main series page. Pumapayam (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong-Keep - There are pages for specific seasons of numerous seasons of reality competition shows. What makes this one any different? Project Runway, Project Catwalk, Top Chef, I Love New York (tv series), Rock of Love, Hell's Kitchen. There's probably tons more that aren't coming to mind right now. Yes this article and many others of the sort should be rewritten, but just because something should be rewritten does not mean it should be deleted. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, season pages are a good compromise between individual episode articles vs short summaries in a list of episodes. It's a notable show. And the episodes are the primary sources. Writing summaries of the episodes is source-based research, not original research. --Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [27] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom. Particularly horrendous demonstration of fancruft; unencyclopedic, unnotable, unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the growing consensus that lists are the best way to handle episodes. AfD is not cleanup. If there's a concern that a seasonal list is too detailed, that's an editorial issue best handled with a merge proposal. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as preferable to having individual episode articles on such a show. Content issues are separate from AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just needs cleaned up. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong-Keep but needs some grooming. There are people who edit this page with spoilers and before the show airs with unneeded and inappropriate information. Sources are not needed for episodes of TV shows and an episode guide is definately needed. (I don't get how the elimination table is up for deletion. It's the same formate as any other elimination table.) Rafe34 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The elimination table inappropriately requires colour in violation of WP:MOS. --Yamla (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:MOS and it makes no sense. To paraphrase a quote by Mark Twain, prohibiting color tables because a color-blind person cannot see the distinctions is "like telling a grown man he can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it." Tom Danson (talk) 04:03, 6 April 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. Notability is indeed not inherited, hence the mass re-direction or deletion of dozens of unsourced stubs; but that doesn't mean that a sub-article is automatically non-notable. This is quite well sourced and as pointed out below, merging back into the main article would make that one unwieldy. Black Kite 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunder Mifflin[edit]

This article describes a non-notable fictional company in a notable show. While the show is popular in the US, notability does not confer to the company--any references avialable are in-universe and fictional, and the company doesn't have influence on markets, advertising, technology, or trends in their industry.

Tagged for notability for a couple months without improvement. Marked as OR for six months without imrpovement. Listing for AfD after {{prod}} disputed. Mikeblas (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. (Yes, I know that strictly speaking this isn't a fictional character). -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Office (U.S. TV series), as per WP:FICTION. No claim of real world notability in article, but it is a likely search term.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would be fine with a merge to the main article and redirect. All the same, Dunder Mifflin is more central to the plot of The Office than, say, the Dharma Initiative is to Lost, yet I think consensus would clearly be in favor of keeping the Dharma article. I understand that comparing one Wikipedia article to another isn't a good argument for keeping or deleting this article. However, I might argue that 413,000 Google hits does have some bearing on the notability of Dunder Mifflin. Then again, this article clearly contains a lot of original research and zero references. Bah, I dunno. I suppose I'm sticking with merge and redirect unless someone wants to do the legwork to find sources. · jersyko talk 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I'm satisfied with the progress being made. Keep. · jersyko talk 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd be for merging if the material was viable -- that is, if it wasn't OR. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hardly think the whole article is OR. Most of the material is sourced from the show, so while it doesn't have a citation it's not really original resource. At least no more so than the plot summary of a movie or book. Tomdobb (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the discussion page for the article you can see the difficulty in building an NPOV article based on a single, primary source. For example, if you look at the section entitled "Regional Manager salary estimate removal", the decision to remove an item on the main article is based on what the editor thinks (that the number in the article is incorrect). They talk of things being "hinted at" in the show. Once an editor steps past the point of reitteration of blatantly clear portions of the plot they fall into this type of delving for facts. These "facts" are then distorted through the lens of an editor's own interpritation. This would clearly be OR. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of OR in an article is not a valid reason to delete ... the article as a whole must be OR. All the same, I do see some stuff which I will be removing later as unsalvageable OR. A lot of the rest can be sourced to individual episodes where the claims were made. In the end I think we'll have an article half as long as the current one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid keep. I am currently working to keep the main article's FA status. WikiProject: The Office is currently being revived after almost of year of lying fallow. The show has given much information about Dunder Mifflin out that it warrants a separate article ... I cannot see the main article on the show absorbing everything here and retaining its featured status. With a little work, the OR-ish stuff could be trimmed out and references could be added. It is much more central to The Office than Fusion Cosmetics is to All My Children, and I can't see us deleting that one. According to the New York Times (source here) one popular T-short website named Dunder Mifflin the second best fictional brand after Duff Beer. I realize the article's in poor shape, and I wish I had the time to work on this as well, but frankly merging this would be like merging Starship Enterprise back into Star Trek because the former article was in poor shape. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I would also note this image and what the articles it's used in say. A fictional company notable enough that it was a given a banner in front of the city hall in the the city where it's set? I think this is notable; we just need an article that can better demonstrate that fact. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have added some sources and discussion of its real-life notability to the article now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as articles on fictitious places and companies go, this has to be one of the better candidates. It should be fairly easy to add enough references to establish notability, as Google has 1.6 million hits. —BradV 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that Google has 1.6 million hits speaks only to the popularity of the show. And, as stated in WP:N, popularity is distinctly different from notability. Do the same search 5 years from now and I am sure you will not see anywhere near those kind of results. (Also, not to be picky, but your search only gives 474,000 hits, not 1.6 million). LeilaniLad (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a central part of the U.S. version of The Office. I think this is an acceptable sub-article of The Office (U.S. TV series), which is a featured article. I would favor a merge over deletion, although merging this article as-is into The Office (U.S. TV series) could bring the quality of that article down. --Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, There are also sources listed at Google News[28] and Google Book[29] that could be used to improve the article. --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, hopefully before the AfD debate times out. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daniel Case. This clearly meets our guidelines. GlassCobra 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Delete. While Dunder Miffilin may be very pertainant to the television show The Office, that does not mark it as notable in any long-term sense. Would an article on the radio staion WKRP outside of the show's main article be notable? Would we want a seperate article for Sugarbaker Designs outside of Designing Women? No. Even though they are central to a plot for a poplular show, they are most certainly not notable subject matter in and of themselves. If, as Daniel Case states above, it is not possible to merge this article in the main one without degrading it then this article should be deleted. LeilaniLad (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, then, I hate to make WP:ALLORNOTHING but you're invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, and there's an awful lot you'd have to delete in Category:Fictional companies if you said this article's subject was non-notable. I admit we don't have a separate article for Wernham Hogg but consider that there are several times as many episodes of the US version of the show then the British original and hence a lot more information the show's given out about the company (Consider that in the British version we never find out if there are any other branches beside Slough and Swinton, whereas we know there are several Dunder Mifflin branches in the Northeast and where. We know about the company's founders ... we even met one in an episode earlier this season. We've been to headquarters in New York City.

You cannot properly discuss The Office and its characters without discussing Dunder Mifflin, the company for which pretty much all of them work. It is as important to understanding the show as understanding Springfield is to The Simpsons. It is the show's setting even more than Scranton. And you have to discuss it at more length than you could within an article, because like Springfield a wealth of detail has been adduced about it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was using these examples to demonstrate a point, there are not actually articles for the fictional companies I mentioned above. And I agree that there are many other articles on items of transitory interest related to fictional works that should be considered for deletion. The fact that there are non-notable articles on Wikipedia does not excuse this article from the requirements of WP:N. The pervasiveness of information garnered by the intense scrutiny of an item does not make it notable. If you examine anything for a long enough time you can produce reams of information, that does not make the item notable in a larger sense.

If discussion of Dunder Mifflin is required for any discussion of The Office, it should take place in the main article. If merging will degrade the quality of the main article, that begs the question of why. If everything in this article was pertinant and notable, merging into the main article should not cause any degridation of quality. The only reason I could see that it would cause issues with the main article is if it's inclusion would bring the main article into question under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As it says there, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." I could certainly see that adding this volume of information on a single aspect of a fictional show's plot would bring the main article into question under this policy. So I ask, if the information in the Dunder Mifflin article is not sutable for inclusion in the main article, why is it sutable to stand as article on it's own? It certainly seems to me as if we are focusing on minutia here.

I pose the following question to those interested in this debate: Do you really think Scranton will have banners hanging in town stating that it is the home of Dunder Mifflin five years after the show is canceled? If your answer is no, then you would have to agree that the only reason this article is even being debated is because of a current popular trend, not that it has any kind of lasting notability. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you had mentioned only one fictional company, which to be technical should really be described as a fictional sole proprietorship. Again, your logic is uncertain. I think Dunder Mifflin is as integral to The Office as the Enterprise is to Star Trek, and I would neither merge nor delete the former article.

Your argument is primarily from abstract principle and seems to be more an exercise in constructing an argument for deletion because no one else here is making one, than a viable argument for deletion. It could be summed up as "if information about some aspect of a fictional universe cannot be dealt with in the main article, than it shouldn't be dealt with at all." We would have to get rid of a lot of articles about characters then.

To address your one point that reflects the instant article rather than an abstract category: Do I think Scranton will have banners hanging (and, I should say from personal experience, the company's logo splattered all over the main elevator shaft at Steamtown Mall, plus on the pedestrian bridge out front)? Hell yeah, given the tourism boost the show's given the city. After all, the Bull & Finch Pub is still living off Cheers memorabilia over a decade after that show was cancelled. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to The Enterprise is spurious. The Enterprise was an entity in several television shows and movies, which it makes it a far more notable than a fictional entity in a single show. Also, all your arguments are again based on the idea that The Office will maintain signifigance for years to come. While this may be true, any such assumption on someone's part would not make it notable now.

Let's keep this within WP:N. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Here a source is strictly defined as a secondary source. This article contains no references. The television show itself is a primary source and, as I stated above, any inferences taken from a primary source can be considered OR. If you search for multiple secondary reliable sources for discussion of Dunder Mifflin as an entity seperate from the individual television show, you will find very few results. There is certaily a great deal of discussion on fan pages, but that is why the term "reliable" is added to the statement from WP:N above.

Again, I am not saying that the information in itself, if sourced, does not belong in Wikipedia. Rather, by failing to meet the criteria in WP:N the Dunder Mifflin article does not qualify to stand on its own. The reason I am pushing for deletion is due to your statement that a Featured Article could suffer if merged in situ. If you feel there is information that would benefit the main article, by all means source it and put it in there. As it stands, anyone who looks at this article and the criteria in WP:N would have to see that this subject does not qualify as notable on its own. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think your attempt to distinguish between the Enterprise and Dunder Mifflin is all that convincing (Would it change if the rumored spinoff happens? Seems to me that it would) The only reason you're here making this argument is not because I'm trying to save a featured article; it's because your prod got removed. If you need another example, look at Hogwarts ... you want to merge all that back into any one of the Harry Potter articles? And even "it's just one fictional company in one single show" doesn't wash, as the Dharma Initiative comment above notes (Lost has been on for maybe the same time (on top of my observation about Fusion Cosmetics. Go ahead and nominate that one, then, if you believe in applying WP:N this way. I really don't think information about the company belongs in the main article any more than details about the characters does. And I think I've added sources that demonstrate some real-world notability. You can't constantly keep saying that it fails WP:N and should be deleted; you may be firmly convinced of that (I've been there, I know it feels) but it fails WP:N only if there's a consensus here that it does, and it doesn't look like that's happening. It really seems to me like you're increasingly grasping at straws. (Oh, and here's U.S. News and World Report discussing it as if it were a real company. It isn't the whole article but it's non-trivial IMO) Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more note: we have a separate article on Deep Space Nine, the space station itself, as opposed to the series. That was the key setting of only one of the TV series, and barely appeared in anything else (the pilot episode of Voyager, one episode of TNG etc.). I would argue that it has analogous notability to this article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not repeating myself, I am responding to your statements individually. No matter what you think, I have no personal investment in this article per say. I am all for merging if you think that is possible. I realise you do have personal investment in it however, so am writing off your assumption of my motives to that. My previous statement was not strictly based on the single aspect, single show. It also mentioned signifigant coverage in reliable sources. You added two NBC pages marketing the show, as well as an NBC merchandise site. A single line in a single article from a reliable source is all that is left, which can hardly be considered "signifigant coverage".

You also keep attemting to defend this article by using WP:OTHERSTUFF, which ironically you accused me of at the begining of your responses. By pointing out other articles you are attempting to shift the focus away from the subject at hand, which is the notability of this article.

I only continue to post on this talk page to respond to your rebuttals. If you would be willing to simply "agree to disagree" we could leave our comments to stand on their own. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, given that you're the only person in this arguing for deletion in any event. Cheerio. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. It's very notable in the context of The Office, but notability is not inherited... I believe it is probably still a notable fictional organisation in its own right, but the article needs references to third-party coverage to prove it. Terraxos (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Well sourced article that clearly hurdles the notability benchmark. Ursasapien (talk) 06:20, 7 April 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, since the lack of in depth coverage by reliable sources has not been overcome. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuums (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Almost one year after the last AfD, there is still no independent source for the article, actually not even an assertion of notability. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a feature film with several name actors. I am more than a bit astonished that the nom didn't bother to surf to the IMDB entry cited in the article's infobox and source from there. An article isn't AfD-worthy if it has no sources; it's AfD-worthy if it seems to be unsourceable. I suppose I'd be counted in the deletionist camp, but c'mon. RGTraynor 15:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGTraynor. It has a number of notable actors (e.g. Chevy Chase, Clive Swift, and Rose McGowan); it doesn't appear to have been a blockbuster, but it was still a studio film. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found nothing on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Allmovie, but I did find some sources on Google News[30] and a profile on Yahoo! Movies[31] in addition to the IMDb link. --Pixelface (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - evidence that it exists, but no evidence of notability. I don't think 'Chevy Chase starred in it' makes it intrinsically notable, and given how little coverage it seems to have received from anywhere, I would say it probably isn't. Terraxos (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the best sources we have are an IMDB entry with no external reviews, a couple passing mentions in press articles on distantly-related topics, and a Yahoo! Movies directory entry. Jfire (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I used the IMDb link in the article and found exactly zero reliable sources. A Google search for "Chevy Chase" and "Vacuums" found a few directories confirming existence but not notability. In fact, there seemed to be almost as many pages on where to buy or repair vacuum cleaners in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The Google News search cited above revealed only trivial mentions.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others; I checked into this myself at NewsBank with a mix of keywords including Chevy Chase, Rose McGowan, Vacuums, and Stealing Bess (not all at the same time, of course). I didn't find any significant coverage by published, third-party sources, so I would be hard-pressed to call this film notable, even with the two actors that seem pretty prominent. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article doesn't consist of one sentence. --Pixelface (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Infobox doesn't stand alone. Neither does the one sentence. Both lack content and context.B.Wind (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Despite this being a fairly recent feature film with notable actors and producers, it pulls up surprisingly few secondary sources and not enough to ever de-stub the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:05, 8 April 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 (yes, it can be done). I see a clear consensus to either merge or delete the page, but there is no clear consensus as to which of these two outcomes is more desirable. As such, I am defaulting to the option that preserves the most content. --jonny-m t 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Argentina policy[edit]

Original research. There was never a "White Argentina policy", and the term has never been used in any notable academic circles or papers. The article should be deleted and merged with Racism in Argentina. Lobizón (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — it is not allowed to delete and merge an article as according to WP:AFD:"Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as delete and merge, which can't be done as edit histories of merged text must be preserved (see also Wikipedia:GFDL)" Also, if it is a merge you are suggesting, AfD is not the correct venue as mergers should be proposed at WP:PM. However, IMO delete and redirect to Racism in Argentina would be the best option without merging the content, as the article is POV original research/synthesis. EJF (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this policy was talked about in my Latin American History Class as well as my Meso American Cultural Anthropology class68.27.12.1 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Anonymous editor 68.27.12.1: With the name "White Argentina policy"? Are you sure? I've never heard of non-European immigration being restricted in my country, and I've lived here all my life. Please see the article's talk page to understand my position, and note that none of the sources cited in the article mentions any restriction in immigration or the name "White Argentina policy" at all. It's true that the Argentine government *promoted* European immigration during the XIX century, but it never *restricted* other types of immigration. There's a big difference.--Lobizón (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Racism in Argentina per nom. Also, 68.27, your history classes are not an academic circle. 21 655 ^τalk/_ʃign 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. While well-written, Google hits for the term "White Argentina policy" = this article. That's it. RGTraynor 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article is based on a POV foundation about Argentina's race policies. It may not be innacurate, but it's not a good foundation for an article. Also, as said above, this isn't a term that exists outside Wikipedia. I don't like the idea of making it a redirect as it seems to be a slanted title that wouldn't have much search result potential. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the title was derived from White Australia policy, which is a common term. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I have created this article with the intention to join several articles in only one. Of course the term white argentina policy is not considered in history, but there was a racist policy like the australian one. The immigration from bordering countries began in the 1950's-1960's when the immigration policy was changed in 1953. I oppose to merge this article into racism in Argentina, because that article talks about discrimination with certain ethnic groups at the present time, whereas white Argentina policy talks about the history of the immigration policy which was encoureged by the argentine government in the 19th and 20th century.--Fercho85 01:38, 01 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "Speedy Keep" votes are ridiculous and without foundation. Voting Keep is fine, but this is clearly not a speedy keep. JuJube (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Fercho85: I'm afraid you are wrong. No Argentine government has ever restricted immigration on racial or nationality basis. Can you back up your claims with sources? As I said before, none of the sources cited by the article mentions any restriction of immigration or the term "White Argentina policy" at all. In fact, seasonal migration of farm labourers from Chile was very common during the 1930s and 1940s. Paraguayan and Bolivian migration to Argentina was already present in the late XIX century. --Lobizón (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Seems good to me. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Lobizon: Lobizon I never said that the argentine government restricted immigration on racial basis if not that the government itself had a racist ideology about which immigration should be encouraged (european immigration) and about the immigration that should not be encouraged (non-european immigration). Remember that Sarmiento, Roca and Alberdi believed that the country should be europeanize[32], Alberdi was a proponent of French being the national language of Argentina, because he believed that Hispanic and Christian traditions were enemies of progress and supported discrimination against Spanish, Italian, and Jewish immigration and Roca believed that the solution against the aboriginal threat was the extintion of them according to his campaign conquest of the desert. There is also the invisibilation of the afro-argentines which was again inspired by Alberdi. In the census of 1947 the argentine state claimed that the totality of the argentine population was white[33]. All this gathers that the argentine goverment master plan was to "whiten" the country[34], therefore there was a racist policy of immigration not exactly like the australian but very similar.--Fercho85 03:39, 02 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Fercho85: Good, we both agree that the XIX century Argentine government *promoted* European immigration, but never *restricted* other types of immigration. However, the opening line of the article, unsourced and written by you, openly states "White Argentina policy is an extensive racist ideology that has been built on the notion of European supremacy where non-white immigration to Argentina was intentionally restricted by the Argentine government". The whole article is based on this false premise, and on a made-up name that was never used by any academic, politician, or notable figure. Googling for "White Argentina policy", both in English and in its Spanish equivalent, brings no results. Seeing that your whole article is based on original research, a false premise, and a made-up name, I believe it needs to be deleted. The merge is unnecessary, as most of the exact same text (without the false opening line) is already present in the Racism in Argentina article. --Lobizón (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything useful here goes to Racism in Argentina, but this is a non-notable neologism. csloat (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Lobizon: Lobizon we can improve and edit the article according to what you say and besise add new sources but I think that by deleting it you are erasing important information regarding the immigration policy in the 19th century because there was a policy in which the government implemented to build a nation (Ideas y Poltica poblacional anteriores a 1930). You claim that the article is a false premise and that is a bunch of isolated opinions from the 19th century, well that bunch of isolated opinions encouraged "certain" immigration that formed the Argentine nation of nowadays. I show the sources specially to you because I know that you are argentine too. Only in order that you know I am not writing articles based on false premises check the racism in argentina versionin spanish andDemographic Argentine ideas (1930-1950)in which this article is supported by the University of Buenos Aires. --Fercho85 02:58, 03 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search shows 4 ghits outside wikipedia [35] and no detail coverage in third party reliable source. Google books shows only one ghit [36]. Merge any useful content into Racism in Argentina. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Otolemur crassicaudatus talk) : Of course if you search white argentina policy you get no matches the term is not considered in history the right term in spanish would be "Ideas Demograficas Argentinas"[37] or Demographic Argentine Ideas in english. I think that the problem of the article is the title, though there was a immigration policy, people have never heard the title white argentina policy because as I said in spanish it is very different. The discution here should have to deal not the deletion of the article if not the right term in english for it. --Fercho85 02:58, 03 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic is amply covered by Racism in Argentina. I did the translation of the Racism in Argentina article, and most of this White Argentina article is a direct cut and paste job of my translation. (What's up with the plagiarism? I know everything here is free domain, but it just strikes me as wrong...) Also, the arguments I see here for applying the label "White Argentina policy" fall into the category of OR since secondary sources do not label it as such. Vrac (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Vrac : Vrac I know that you translated the text but why are you acussing me of plagiarism? The only thing that I have done this to join different parts of articles in only one. Besise this topic is not fully covered as you say in Racism in Argentina that article is about racism at nowadays, there is only one part in which the article deals about the immigration policy and in the article is reffered as "white european racism". As I said we should not delete the article if not to improve it. --Fercho85 02:12, 08 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability for term. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:09, 8 April 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-m t 07:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women, Action & the Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Women, Action & the Media

Notability not apparent, no RS, puff piece. ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As NN, fails WP:V. 170 someodd unique G-hits, and such media mentions as this conference has are in the calendar sections of alternative weeklies and campus newspapers; I couldn't find a single reliable source about the conference. RGTraynor 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say move to Center for New Words, the organization that holds the conference, but it doesn't seem particularly notable either. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two sentences do not an article make; also, it's orphaned for a reason.B.Wind (talk) 02:46, 8 April 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 List of ZX Spectrum clones. PhilKnight (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra (computer)[edit]

Not a notable subject, a local Spectrum clone built 1988-1989 in small quantities. One www source available, no printed publications. Kubanczyk (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nope, this fails WP:NOTE - [38]. It's verifiable, but I doubt reliable sources would be found given the searching I've done. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the other short articles on the various spectrum clones into a single new article. Copy contents of existing articles into new article prior to ~~deletion~~redirection. If any are particularly notable with sufficient contents in their articles then keep separate and link from list. ~~Delete~~Redirect remaining individual articles after content merging. Link to list article from main spectrum article. I'm not many of these are indivudually notable, but as a group they are. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually it seems there is already a list type article, but with very little information - mostly article links. The main spectrum article however only links to the category, not the list article. I might have a go at tidying this up over the weekend if noone objects or does it first. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the comment above says there is an appropriate article List of ZX Spectrum clones (if thats the one BrucePodger) found. The clone article had a no consensus Afd back in Dec 2006, and has been flagged for cleanup since then. It will be good to get that page sorted. MortimerCat (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thats the one. I've started work on this, converting the merge articles to redirects as I go. I'll hold off on changing the Cobra article to a redirect until this afd is closed though. --BrucePodger (talk) 11:37, 6 April 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 per lack of notability and reliable sources as indicated below. The flood of anonymous/SPA accounts should also be reminded that deletion discussions are not a vote but rather a way of measuring policy-based consensus amount editors. --jonny-m t 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulteo[edit]

Software that is not notable and has no reliable sources other then it’s home page, a rant page about someone who got fired from their job and another site that you need a password to get into. Pmedema (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete ! Ulteo is a great and alive project! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.24.115 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete and leave it from Articles for Deletion. The Ulteo project has recently released several software products or services. It's alive! I have updated the page completely and added references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.122.59.118 (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my nomination --Pmedema (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The personal trials and tribulations have no relevance with regard to the software. No reliable, verifiable independent sources. DarkAudit (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's anything interesting about Ulteo, 2 years of stub should have been enough to get an article with more than 1 or 2 good sentences. Although there must have been a little bit of hype, this is too much vaporware to keep indefinitely. Is neither popular nor innovative.--Chealer (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really thought Middix or Iteva would get this treatment before Ulteo... If there is an argument for keeping this article, I think it would be a "notability-inherited" argument from the famous guy. Or maybe the linux.com article. But that might not be (and probably is not) enough. -- Swerdnaneb 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete
Sorry for my english: I don't want to offend anybody.

I say: just put the word Ulteo on google and you'll find over 250.000 pages of results! Only uncorrect people can say there are "No reliable, verifiable independent sources."

http://fosswire.com/2008/03/28/ulteo-application-system-beta-1-the-fosswire-review/ http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ulteo http://www.linux.com/feature/125891 http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/97110/index.html http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9832336-7.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071216-hands-on-with-the-new-online-version-of-openoffice-org.html http://lifehacker.com/software/online-documents/use-openoffice-online-with-ulteo-332841.php http://rangle.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/ulteo-will-it-change-the-way-we-all-use-computers/ http://wddc.blogspot.com/2007/12/would-ulteo-help-openoffice-to-beat-ms.html ... I think there's no need to go futher.

Before to say that "Is neither popular nor innovative" is better read about the Application System (http://www.ulteo.com/home/applicationsystem) or the Online Desktop (http://www.ulteo.com/home/onlinedesktop).

You want to know what to do with the Online Desktop? you may consider to read (http://blog.ulteo.com/)

One thing is right: the page is not well done and MUST be edited. But I'm not so sure it must be deleted... -- Panta 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.20.72 (talk • contribs) — 82.51.20.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DarkAudit (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit I haven't read the article in qustion, but I do strongly agree that Ulteo is notable and popular within it's own right and worthy of an article that presents it as such. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! you wouldn't delete this article after the first beta version is available, would you? --Amine Brikci N (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would. Existence itself is not notability. I don't think anyone has said, "There's no beta version. Delete." -- Swerdnaneb 18:08, 7 April 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 Redirect to Ealing Broadway station only because there might be some useful info to transfer (though I think most of it is already there). In this case, notability is clearly not inherited. The few Keep votes are mostly "it's notable", and another editor was under the impression it was a station in its own right. I have protected the redirect given some of the remarks made in this AfD. Black Kite 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealing Broadway Platform 9[edit]

A "contested" (unexplained, waste of everyone's time) proposed deletion. My original reasoning: "Far too specific an article - a single unremarkable platform at a railway station?"; a further endorsment by Jfire: "Ealing Broadway station is reasonable; an article on a single platform there is taking it too far". Thanks/wangi (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was Delete under WP:CSD#G7 per [39] Pedro : Chat 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Reopening- author has recreated page, less than a day after requesting speedy deletion. Content is substantially the same and discussion below relevant. Thanks/wangi (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ealing Broadway station. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even a redirect is overkill. The article is a train timetable. Wikipedia is not a train schedule. DarkAudit (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article asserts notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where? —BradV 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting Ealing Broadway Platform 9 is also a very individual and high profile platform. The platform appears to be over 100 years old and has distinctive original features. It is therefore of historic interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article has to do more than assert notability -- although in this case it's more than you infer such an assertion than it actually does assert the same -- to be keepworthy; an assertion of any sort serves only to disqualify an article from Speedy Deletion. Notability has to be verifiable as well. Were I to create an article about myself and claim to be the Fire God of the Neptunians, I'm sure you wouldn't support Keep on that basis and that alone. Ravenswing 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) First of all, you'll need a reference for that assertion. Second, just because something is old does not imply that it is notable. It needs to be covered by reliable, third party sources. See WP:N. —BradV 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no necessity for this. What an article needs is verifiability and NPOV. It's fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming, Monster, Godzilla-Stomp Delete: Are you freaking kidding me? An article on a single platform at a train station? Yes, WP:BITE is important, but we're being had here; this has to be a joke. Short of a subsequent article being written about the trash can on the left-hand side of the chipped column on Ealing Broadway Platform 9, we have a new Wikipedia record for non-notability and non-verifiability. Ravenswing 16:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not even close to the record. We have hundreds of articles about unnamed and unseen rocks (minor asteroids plotted by automated machinery). Or many hamlets with a handful of dwellings. This platform, by contrast is in a busy terminus and is used by many thousands of people. The author has taken some care to document this and deserves better than these careless, knee-jerk reactions. Its verifiability, for example, is trivial to establish - see Direct access for example. This source even contains a photo and the antique underground emblem can be seen in this. If you don't understand why this is special, then you should confine yourself to articles on Godzilla and other pop culture. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely believe that a discrete subway platform is "special," I shall leave you to your beliefs. Ravenswing 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you reading? One line all the way at the bottom of the article mentions anything about the history. Everything else is a timetable. DarkAudit (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability and verifiability - A search turns up nothing useful. —BradV 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You prove yourself wrong since these hits demonstrate verifiability. Note also that Google searches are insufficient grounds for deletion. In the case of historic places such as this, much information is buried in paper sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as original prod endorser. This is ridiculous; I have to think Colonel Warden is trying his hand at an April Fools Joke. Look at the picture... it's a freakin' train platform, like thousands of others. Nothing notable about it. Jfire (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the last article you worked upon, we see that it is Guárico River. I have nothing against this but a mean-spirited person might say that it is just a freakin' river, like thousands of others. Please explain why a one-sentence stub about a river is better than a well-developed article about a distinctive and historic railway platform in a busy metropolis. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare the results of these two searches, perhaps you'll see the difference: [40] [41]. Jfire (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your search technique is poor since a four word phrase is too exact - the usage will vary more. Such phrases are better broken up and then we get a comparable result. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. And Colonel Warden, replying to everyone that disagrees with you is not going to help your case; I frankly find your arguments to be without merit. JuJube (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We have not yet begun to fight" :). These initial exchanges are useful in establishing the key points. Having explored the sources and turned up much interesting material, the next step will be to improve the article but this takes time. If all you have to offer is a Delete per then don't let us detain you ... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well developed? Can I have some of what you're smoking? It's a freaking railway timetable! DarkAudit (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with User:Jfire, it is instructive to see what articles you favour. The last article you worked upon seems to be Paul Atkinson. And again this is a one-sentence stub which one might dismiss as just another priest. Is there a reason why you are attacking the better work of others rather than improving these stubs? You do realise that you do not need to "make space" before expanding those articles? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with your comments to User:Jfire, that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And if your participation in this AfD is your idea of a joke, it's not funny, and is borderline disruptive. —BradV 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not irrelevant. One might characterise as them as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is a common if weak AFD argument. I see them more as demonstrating that these editors tolerate other material which is even more inconsequential and so their arguments are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is also weak. I am no doubt commenting more than is politically wise but bear in mind that this is supposed to be a reasoned discussion rather than a headcount or vote. Some back-and-forth is appropriate to test the quality of the arguments. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, do you mean the edit DarkAudit made to that article reverting obvious vandalism? Whether you're just not paying attention or are outright trolling, I have no idea, but the time to cease being disruptive is now. Ravenswing 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Presumed to fail WP:N unless reliable sources are provided that extensively treat this particular platform. Deor (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just as Verifiable as a host of other geographic stubs. The Article does assert Notability. Deletes are based upon the fact that it has no WP:RS, just like a whole host of hungarian town stubs. This will change once the relevant WikiProject gets to it, is there a rush? WP will always be a work in progress. (Please be careful that your !Vote is not based upon WP:IDONTLIKEHIM, which seems to be the tone that this AfD is taking) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this isn't a town, for which that argument would apply. —BradV 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion of notability will keep an article from being speedily deleted, that's all. After that, you have to prove it. Everyone keeps harping on the single sentence at the bottom of the article. Take that single sentence out, and you're left with a railway timetable, nothing more. Wikipedia is not a train schedule. That one sentence can be merged in with the article on the station where it belongs. DarkAudit (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain all the aforementioned Hungarian towns to me if it "must be proven". I admit, this article needs cleanup, but that seems to be the basic reason !votes are using to base a Delete upon, when it is not required for this verifiable geographic location. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - oh dear God, I really hope this was created as an April Fool. It is ridiculously non-notable - and I say this as one who has been to the platform in question, there's nothing special about it! Individual railway platforms are never notable; when you consider that the (arguably) most notable railway platform in the world, Platform Nine and Three Quarters, does not have its own article, you realise that this one most definitely should not. (And it has no sources, anyway.) Terraxos (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well your wrong about "Individual railway platforms are never notable...", see Howard (CTA) and if that isnt small enough, how about Loyola (CTA). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Exit2DOS2000#Ealing Broadway)

Nobody is saying that the railway station isn't notable, it is. It has an article at Ealing Broadway station. The article is purely for a single platform (out of the nine at the station). Thanks/wangi (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the arguments being used as reasons to !Vote delete, are faulty. IF a geographic location has can satisfy WP:V, why must it go? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was confused - the examples you gave were train stations, I guess they might have just had 1 or 2 platforms, but it was a discrete station never the less. In this case the individual platform isn't notable itself, there is perhaps a single sentence that can be said about it (re old style signs) but this is covered in the article about the station. Everything else comes under the spirit of WP:NOT along with many other policy and guidelines - this isn't a timetable, this isn't a reference for train buffs -- it's an encyclopaedia. What can be said about platform 9 at Ealing Broadway that cannot be covered at Ealing Broadway station? You can verify an amazing number of things - doesn't mean they are encyclopaedic. Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference Wangi, If you are simply going to ask a Q on my talkpage then transpose it all back to an AfD. Please just ask in the AfD. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this topic. Please do not delete it, I created because many people who had interests in it suggested I should do so. All the people who want it deleted, I don't know why! You was not the one who spent hours working on it, collecting all the information, and typing it up etc! If you don't like the article then don't look at it. Nobody is forcing you to go on it. I don't look at X rated web sites, I don't think there necessary, but I dont demand that they are deleted! ! ! Wikipedia is about freeing the knowledge! Surely all knowledge is good, as long as it is accurate. This is accurate. What is wrong with that ? ? ? Deleting it would go against everything wikipedia stands for ... PS I will take a picture shortly to add onto the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atgio (talk • contribs) 2008-04-02T12:44:23

Response: Wikipedia is not, in fact, about "freeing the knowledge." Articles are assessed on various policies and standards, and I strongly recommend you take a look at WP:V and WP:N, as well as WP:PILLARS, to get a better handle on what they are. Articles which the Wikipedia community believes do not meet those standards are subject to deletion, which the AfD process is for. Ravenswing 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note, I to hope that you (Ravenswing) also read thoes pages you mention. This Platform is WP:V. WP:N is only a guideline, not a Policy, so is flexable in interpretation and WP:PILLARS specifically points out (in bold) Wikipedia does not have firm rules and so would not tend to warrent a WP:BITEy "Overwhelming, Monster, Godzilla-Stomp Delete". "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." sound familiar? Jimmy Wales said it and that could be interpreted as "freeing the knowledge." Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We had a black comedy of errors today in which the author seemed to misinterpret the AFD template, placed a db-author tag on the article which was then speedily deleted, despite the author's obvious protestations. The article was then userfied and when the author was notified of this he predictably recreated it and then it was predictably sent back here again. This bureaucratic farce is the process of biting newbies which is well critiqued at RFA. Common-sense is noticeably absent from this process since this article is quite harmless and does not violate our policies in any way. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ealing Broadway station obviously. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all notable information (i.e. the original roundal on platforms 8 and 9) is already on the main article. /wangi (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'Thank You Colonel Warden , I am very new at this, and this is indeed the first article I have published. Which I worked very hard on! I do not see what harm this article is doing at all. Or why anyone is going out of there way to have my hard work disposed of. ( Atgio (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
Comment Atgio, firstly apologies that your start to the Wikipedia experience has not been as easy as it could have been - in fact a bit of a misery. Please feel assured that no-one is against you or your hard efforts, but we are not a random depository of information. We are an encyclopedia, and as such have policies and guidelines laid down on what is, or is not, the correct content for Wikipedia. Whatever the outcome of this AFD please rest assured that all editors here hope you will continue to contribute. Secondly, Colonel Warden - ss a seasoned Wikipedia editor, which you are, can you not see that "it's not doing any harm" is about a good a rationale as WP:ILIKEIT. We get flooded by non-notable information everyday. 99.99999% doesn't "do any harm". It's not a reason for keeping it though. Pedro : Chat 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic is not "random" as you suggest. The author had specific reasons for selecting this platform as he has indicated and these are now emerging as the article is fleshed out. To delete the article on the basis of a such a superficial snap-judgement would be contrary to policy. See WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, poor phrasing. My thrust of that remark is better summed up at WP:INDISCRIMINATE Pedro : Chat 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if someone wants information on a particular platform, they'd look for it at the train station where, incidentally, anything useful already exists. We've verified it exists, yes, doesn't mean it needs an article. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the disruption earlier, Atgio has added some more content and I have done some formatting and linking. References have been added and the article seems to be coming along quite nicely. I myself have learnt several interesting things from this and still see no reason why our readership should be denied the opportunity to share in this knowledge. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real substancial secondary sources. Plus why do we need a freaking timetable, this is an encyclopedia not a railway guide. D.M.N. (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In its lede article establishes encyclopedic notability through historical references. According to wikipedia policy, once notability is established whatever else the article includes so long as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are met is irrelevant. This would include <ahem> freaking timetable. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument, Firefly, is this this is notable because it's "historical"? (Incidentally there are no references that support the age of the station given so far). Just being around a long time does not make something notable. Example: There's a thatched cottage in my village dating from the 1700's. Nothing has ever happened there of any significance. It's old and it certinaly exists. But it's existence is not encyclopedic material. Pedro : Chat 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, have you lost your mind? As an evaluting administrator who previously deleted the article, there is no way you should now be contributing to the debate in any way. It is a reprehensibly grave error in judgement. And you've done it twice. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, and please don't leave edit summaries of "administrator abuse". I deleted it under WP:CSD#G7 per the authors request when he tagged it db-author. It transpires the author did not understand what the tag did, but I'm afraid that's not my fault. I closed the AFD as the article was gone. The author recreated the article, so the AFD was re-opened. If I closed this AFD as a consensus decision (either way) that would be out of process, yes, but I fail utterly to see how my actions so far preclude me from commenting on the value of the article (and you will note I have not made a delete or keep comment - I have made an edit explaining my actions so far and questioning onwe users interpretation of notability, , and I have made an edit questioning your interpretation of notability). Would you like to reconsider your comments in light of these facts? Pedro : Chat 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely backup your behaviour in this situation - everything done has been in good faith. I see no reason whatsoever you should be precluded form this discussion. Thanks/wangi (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a startling assertion that an admin previously involved has no right to express an opinion. What is a violation of process is an admin (for instance) deleting an article after he's weighed in on the debate. As far as I'm concerned, Pedro can say whatever he pleases and comment Keep or Delete as suits him ... as long as he isn't thereafter the closing admin. And doubly agreed ... for pity's sake, I pass through the Boylston station in Boston's subway every day. Boylston was built in the 19th century, and you can still see the original steel support columns. No one would ever assert (or so I would have thought, before this debate) that the inbound platform deserved its own independent article. Ravenswing 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the kind words of support. And, for the record, clearly I will not be closing this AFD. No admin would/should close an AFD they have commented on. I have taken up my concern (in particular regarding the edit summary) with Firefly322 on his user page. That way we can hopefully get back to the point here, which is the relevant merits or otherwise of both the article and the arguments as to wether it should be kept, deleted or merged. Pedro : Chat 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Boylston, this seems to be an exceptionally notable place - being especially old, having some museum pieces and appearing in literature. I found the article interesting but it could use further development and it is a shame that we are wasting out time upon this negative bureaucracy rather than such constructive work. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early on, this turned into a really nasty debate, showing a complete derailment in significant wikipedia guidelines: WP:UCS and WP:BITE. Any administrators and experienced editors in their right minds would have distanced themselves as much as possible. Yet Pedro and you others have done just the opposite. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? So if a situation is turning into a "complete derailment" then admins and experienced editors walk away? That's excatly the opposite of what should happen. Pedro : Chat 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some more sections to improve the article further. Elsewhere in AFD, I see a reference to the case of Mzoli's which seems relevant. The press coverage explains. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think the reference to a pre-1919 sign and the original signal cabin might be notable enough to be worth preserving, but details of trains are in practice unmaintainable. The right place for them is on a London Transport website, which will certainly be maintained. The rest is of little value and should not survive. I am not clear why this article is tagged both for AFD and Rescue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One tag is a consequence of the other. When some editors impatiently demand that an article be deleted, other editors have to move quickly in order to save it. This may be difficult at short notice. I was myself late for work this morning since I burnt the midnight oil working upon the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge I agree that some of the comments here have been less than helpful, and I'm sorry that a new editor has had a pretty lousy first experience of Wikipedia. But while the article is not entirely without merit, I still can't see any value to keeping a separate article on this individual platform. The timetable information is a fairly textbook example of what Wikipedia is not, and apart from the principle that an encyclopaedia is not the same thing as a train timetable, Peterkingiron raises the valid practical point that we could not realistically hope to keep that sort of information accurate and up to date - how many editors are actually going to go round all of our railway articles checking that they're still correct every time a new timetable is published? (If I were feeling sarky, I'd also add that a British railway timetable is the epitome of an unreliable source, or that as an article about a work of fiction it needs to demonstrate real world notability. ;-p) The stuff about the original sign and the signal cabin is more promising, but there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason whuy it needs to be here rather than in the main Ealing Broadway station (which notes that more than one platform has original signs). Unless there's so much to say specifically about this one platform that it can't reasonably fit into the main article, spinning it off into additional sub articles just makes it harder for the reader to find the information, and risks unnecessary duplication of work. So I say remove the timetable, and merge what can be sourced and isn't there already into the main article Ealing Broadway station article. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was amused by the first reference. Will we see an article for each section of track because the newspaper reported a breakdown, an injury or a death? This is just silly. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Way, way, way too specific. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see why all this can't be covered under Ealing Broadway station. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with any useful information being added to the Ealing Broadway station article if it is not already included. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - Lest we have articles like Oakland International Airport Terminal One Gate 7 with content including "Recently remodeled, this United Airlines-leased gate is the usual departure point of United Express flights to Los Angeles operated by SkyWest with Canadair CRJ-200 aircraft." Eesh, I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas there. FCYTravis (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but perhaps merge more or less into Ealing Broadway station. This article asserts historical notbility without a shred of text to support it. Although I do think train articles tend to be more notable because of the wide interest in them, this is a bit too much even for me, as above. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ealing Broadway Station. -- Naerii 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after removing excess detail) to Ealing Broadway Station. I would also like to comment that sometimes the oddest things can become notable. I walk past a war memorial every couple of weeks at a London underground tube station. There are tens of thousands of war memorials all over Britain, but I fully intend to add something one day to Baker Street tube station about its war memorial. The relevant information here can be handled similarly: the historical information can be merged to Ealing Broadway Station, as suggested. I could even get some better free pics of the roundels now that summer is approaching and the evenings are lighter. Focus less on articles and their titles, but on the information and the correct location. A simple edit, merge and redirect would have avoided all this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per Iain99 and Carcharoth shortly above. Contrary to a number of people, some of them apparently excited, I'm quite open to the notion of an entire article on a station platform -- IFF this is merited by the article on the station as a whole and the material on the particular platform. So if for example the stunning Antwerpen-Centraal railway station had the full article its pre-1998 state deserved (which I say without wanting to disparage the considerable efforts that have already been made), and if its recent subterranean development (of which I know very little) were as interesting as it might be and also confined to a single platform, then this platform might well justify an article. However, there really doesn't seem to be all that much to say about either this platform of Ealing Broadway station or the station as a whole. Strip the unencyclopedic stuff from the former, merge the remainder with the latter, and you end up with an article that's more than averagely long and interesting for a suburban London station but that's not unwieldy. ¶ Despite my disagreement with his position, I commend Colonel Warden for his dignity and courtesy (and stamina) above. (And I should like to read what Wageless would say about this.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I do, however, disagree that there is not much that can be said about the full station. It has proved surprisingly easy to gather much interesting material about this one of its nine platforms. I now fancy I could write a book about the station as a whole. For example, if one studies the sources then, apart from much transport history, one sees that the station shows up regularly in accounts of rock gods like Eric Clapton and the Rolling Stones. And there's the IRA bomb. And the Crossrail project. And the gargantuan Ealing Leaf project. And who knows what else. The difficulty in such cases in knowing where to start. One might proceed top-down but in this case the author has decided to write from the bottom-up. It is an interesting stylistic effect, somewhat like pointillism or Diary of a Nobody and it would be a shame to see this crushed by Beeching-like sentiments of economic efficiency. We must remember that Wikipedia is not paper and so there are few practical limits which require us to limit such experimentation. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of train station memorabilia is Station Jim, a stuffed dog on platform 5 at Slough railway station. See here and here. I have a free picture of Station Jim, and like the war memorial example above, am considering adding a bit to the station article. It is tidbits like these that make articles interesting, so please, when considering articles like this in future, consider where to put the verifiable information, rather than merely chosing between delete or keep. Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Station Jim is a delightful story - thank you. He seemed so obviously notable, like Greyfriars Bobby that I have created an article on him alone. Please take it from there and add your photos and other details. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 6 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Alexandre Mendes Marques[edit]

Contested prod (unexplained). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league (the Tercera División is not fully pro) and claiming that he will play at a higher level is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 10:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:23, 5 April 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 subject does not pass the criteria of WP:BIO. --jonny-m t 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Owens[edit]

Contested PROD. Basketball coach with no verification as to notability and relatively few google hits. Article is totally unreferenced. Sole creator and editor is Caseyowens (talk · contribs) suggesting violation of WP:COI. Roleplayer (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Vanity. The article mentions that he's published, but I see nothing on google. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Weak keep per Cyrus Andiron. His basketball positions aren't huge separately, but with all of them together, I think he's borderline notable. These sources should be put in the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has no reliable sources and fails WP:BIO Oh... and has a conflict of interest. --Pmedema (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a link to the book on Amazon.com [42]. It's certainly obscure, but it was published, has an ISBN number, and can be bought online. According to his bio, he works as a coach for the Chicago Bulls. If that could be confirmed, it might help to establish some notability. --Cyrus Andiron 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one announces his hiring with the Bulls[43]. Same thing from ESPN [44]. This one talks about his time with the Dakota Wizards[45]. This one from ESPN discusses how he was not going to be rehired as coach of the Wizards[46]. Another mention in the sidebar, this one deals with his duties as head of basketball operations [47]. Discusses Owens hiring by the Wizards [48]. Shows his capacity with the Bulls and his current state of employment [49]. I think those are some pretty strong sources in terms of showing that he is a coach and has had some reasonably high profile positions. Granted, none of this is sourced in the article, but it could be. --Cyrus Andiron 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, they shouldn't be here, but in the article instead. So should Wikification, for that matter, too. B.Wind (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:BIO Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see here... written by the subject itself, not Wikified, orphaned, no sources, no real demonstration of notability. He might qualify for a Wikipedia article if there is more demonstration of WP:BIO, but not with this unsourced mess. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 02:53, 8 April 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 article has been proposed for deletion several times in the past month; the new nomination appears to be trolling and in any event not a reasonable or good faith nomination. Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Smith[edit]

This article is about a verifiable but very WP:LOCAL article and is largely complete WP:BOLLOCKS with wide and far reaching libel issues, NPOV issues, original research. The subject is not notable. He is only mentioned in passing in most of the sources which are all free trash newspapers from the Bay Area. No mention in Los Angeles or New York trash newspapers, no mention in legitimate San Francisco Bay Area newspapers. Articles which are about him are trivial mentions such as concert and entertainment and arts sections that report on concerts. Also a non notable rap magazine. And apparently the artist's album notes too, album notes are not appropriate secondary sources, they are not available online either and are not verified. This article while well formatted does not meet our standards and should be deleted. NewAtThis (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.NewAtThis (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the sources, he looks notable to me. Somewhat local, but that's local to southern California, which is a wide and densely populated area. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Northern California actually.NewAtThis (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; I don't know California well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case may I respectfully ask your grounds for thinking the sources to be notable? RGTraynor 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco Bay Guardian may be free, and I hardly agree with its politics, but it's a reliable source of quite some pedigree. WP:LOCAL doesn't apply because that's for places. Still, I don't think this rapper meets notability without some coverage out of the area. Delete. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: There are a number of sources here giving trivial mentions on the website of a local alternative weekly, but here's the rub: what elements of WP:MUSIC might any Keep proponents suggest this fellow fulfills? RGTraynor 16:23, 1 April 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 without prejudice to re-creation; currently fails WP:BAND Black Kite 09:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charming Associates[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BAND for me, it has been created as both Charming Associates and The Charming Associates several times and always ended up speedy deleted. Let's have a proper AfD and settle the matter ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. No notability. WilliamH (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability; not big enough to have gotten an album or bio on allmusic. Google turned up a talk page, where the creator of the article called the band "currently in the process of being signed". That was December 2006; it looks like there's been no change. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Although they are not on www.allmusic.com they do have a listing on www.discogs.comVoncrass (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the criteria here. Being listed on a database does not equate to notability. WilliamH (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the criteria for disogs.com, in order to be added one has to be notable.Voncrass (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. One just has to exist. I just put in my college chorus, who did indeed cut a record in 1980. Make mine Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Ravenswing 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~.:The Charming Associates were shortlisted in the '3 First Cut Awards'. That should address the WP:MUSIC problem, satisfying #9 in the criteria. 'Has won or placed in a major music competition.' http://www.3firstcutawards.co.uk/Estate/FirstCut/profile.cfm?ID=2061 Voncrass (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand my my comment that the article doesn't establish notability. The reference count there stands at, well, zero. If you've got some references that support notability, jump on in and {{rescue}} the page. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That weblink is a self-created profile (with www.myspace.com/voncrassknave given as a webpage, raising WP:COI issues) and has no suggestion that this group actually won or placed this competition; indeed, there is a "Finalists" section distinct from the "Shortlist" section. What makes these "3firstcutawards" (which have a mighty 95 G-hits) a "major competition?" Ravenswing 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Do Not Delete~~. The 3 First Cut Awards are a major nationwide competition in the UK hosted by the '3' telephone network.Voncrass (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... with a grand total of 56 unique hits on the UK Google [50], not a single one of which is from any mainstream media, and the bulk of which are Myspace, Youtube and blog sites. By what stretch of the imagination can this be claimed to be a "major" competition? Ravenswing 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Do Not Delete~~. Surely coverage on Capital Radio (one of London's largest stations) counts as mainstream media?

http://www.capitalradio.co.uk/article.asp?id=386292 Are there any wiki moderaters from the UK that can get involved in this as they will have better knowledge of the UK media and awards in this country? Voncrass (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An ad listing on a local radio station's website? Please review WP:RS. I'm looking for an article about these awards. Ravenswing 13:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say 'local' radio station are you aware that Capital is London's largest radio station? London is a rather large place. I have found an article about the 3 awards, will this satisfy you? http://www.exposure.net/events/articles/139.html Voncrass (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a press release. (On London's fourth largest station, according to its own article.) About a non-notable competition, in which the band in question wasn't even one of the finalists, as WP:MUSIC would require. As in a major competition. Such as the Grammies, or the Van Cliburn competitions, or the MTV Music Awards. Ravenswing 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Judging from the article, this group appears to be a local band. They have not achieved widespread exposure yet. At the present time, they do not meet the requirements set forth in WP:MUSIC. --Cyrus Andiron 16:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke Failure of WP:BANDI'm feeling mean today :) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:02, 4 April 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 Disruptive AfD by a possible sock; subject clearly appears to be notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isahaya Park[edit]

possible hoax, original research, no reliable sources, no sources, not verified, etc etc NewAtThis (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this ain't april fool's folks!NewAtThis (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a hoax; there is information on the internet. Meganebashi - Isahaya Park is a sister article that mentions a bridge in this park. A blog here from 2005 mentions the park, the Azeleas, and has a picture of the bridge that the sister article talks about. A reliable source is here, the Nagasaki Prefectual Tourism Federation. (To navigate, search for "Isahaya" in the page, click "Enter" above it, and click the park on the interactive map.) The sister article should be merged into this one, as the name is mangled, and it doesn't need a separate article. I'm going to add that link to the article, and see if I can get a geocoord from the interactive map and google maps (GM might have it labeled, but zooming in on Nagasaki gives me Japanese text that I can't read). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The park is notable, the sources exist. Nomination by a possible AfD troll. SWik78 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No apparent reason to delete this Fg2 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 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. There are a number of good policy-based arguments on all sides, but despite thorough discussion I do not see a clear consensus to delete, redirect, or merge the article. --jonny-m t 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiva Kahl[edit]

per whoever nominated NewAtThis (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD post-deletion. Original PROD rationale was, "NN performer. 12 appearances on Letterman in five years isn't a lot, especially with very little else in the way of appearances. Most of the press coverage on her official site is trivial, and GHits are brief mentions only." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only role is trivial in nature, and she's not the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's been on the show many dozens of times, during each of which she was viewed by millions of TV viewers. Her role on the Letterman show is small, but it's moderately spectacular in its own way, and she's an established long-running figure on the show... AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make redirect to The Late Show with David Letterman. She doesn't seem notable outside the show, but the redirect would still be handy. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Late Show with David Letterman. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Late Show with David Letterman. That article seems like it could handle a short section on her appearances on the show. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there are a few sources like Der Spiegel on an appearance she did for Richard Branson that indicate some international name recognition. Matched with the NYT piece we satisfy WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keepnotable enoughNewAtThis (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nontrivial IMDB page including 12 documented Letterman appearances in the past 9 months alone; notable as member of AntiGravity (which survived a deletion debate in 2004); reasonable assertion of press coverage on her home page[51]. The article is weak, not the subject herself. –BozoTheScary (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Dozens of YouTube videos with thousands of views and consistent 4 and 5 star ratings (a couple with tens of thousands of views); twice mentioned on the Sketches on Letterman page; mentioned on the cbs.com website 40 times (the dates lending support to the hypothesis that IMDB is substantially understating the number of her appearances); also appears (on Letterman) eating fire with an albino snake around her neck; bio page[52] mentions performances on Broadway, at Sundance Film Festival, and 2002 Olympic Winter Games –BozoTheScary (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons listed above. Appearences on Letterman number in the hundreds. With all due respect to IMDB, the "12" appearences listed there is wrong. Appearence with AntiGravity is notable, as well as the fact that she has a successfull touring schedule (information about which should probably be added to the article with approporate citations). Fish Man (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Late Show with David Letterman. Yes, she's clearly notable, but there just isn't that much to say about her; given that, I think she'd be better covered as a subsection of the Late Show article, since that's what her notability mostly relates to. Terraxos (talk) 05:15, 2 April 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 closure), per WP:SNOW, account under investigation for bad faith edits. Porterjoh (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Terra[edit]

Non notable, no citations, no sources, no reliable sources, no secondary sources, no tertiary sources, only one link, largely promo ad, all original research, not verified. NewAtThis (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per aboveNewAtThis (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a decent bit on google (try looking for "Daniel Terra"). He founded an art museum; see Terra Museum. I'm adding a source I found to the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, founded two museums (only one survives, the Musée d’Art Américain Giverny), and under Pres. Reagan was "the first -- and only -- United States ambassador-at-large for cultural affairs".[53] --Dhartung | Talk 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Dhartung's link. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was not the original author, but I've added substantially to the article since AfD nomination. It now has several references/citations. The article needs substantial re-writing, but I was working on justification, not grammar. Dang Fool (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- appears to be one of a string of malicious and retaliatory AfD nominations by NewAtThis – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember WP:AGF. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 1 April 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: nomination withdrawn. —BradV 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbetarbladet[edit]

~~non notable newspaper mini stub, no reliable sources, no in text sources, no secondary sources, likely a translation of a similarly non notable but slightly (slightly) longer stub in swedish.~~ NewAtThis (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) WITHDRAW NOMINATIONNewAtThis (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomNewAtThis (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 1170+ Google News hits and over half a million Google hits lend credence to the notion of notability. My Swedish is a bit rusty so perhaps, as an expert on the Swedish media, you can outline why this apparently major Swedish newspaper which serves a large geographical area and is itself widely quoted is not-notable. - Dravecky (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; although my understanding is that "Arbetarbladet" just means something like "Worker's Newspaper", raising the possibility that more than one paper bears this name. This would appear to be a daily newspaper in the major city of Gävle, which would seem to make a fairly strong case that this is a reasonable stub on a notable topic. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without sources, it is OR, i hardly call 68K a major city.68.27.12.1 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misinterpretation of WP:NOR, which seeks to limit original conclusions. ("Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found.) It is not the same thing as lacking sources. We have {{unreferenced}}, suggesting that we have many articles waiting for someone with the access and inclination to add them. --Dhartung | Talk 01:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a major daily newspaper in Sweden, and can easily be expanded and sourced. The anon comment above is gringocentrism at its worst. --Soman (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is also a Arbetarbladet in Finland, and 1869-1888 there was a Arbetarebladet published in Sweden (same name, just a more archaic spelling), see: [54]. --Soman (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 1 April 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-m t 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaji sani labaran[edit]

Extremely short article about a politician (possibly Nigerian). No hits in Google for this name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable no sourcesNewAtThis (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. There's a good chunk about the PDP online considering how few online sources there are about Africa, and some indication that the surname (?) Labaran is often connected with the party. Alhaji is probably an honorific, not a first name. I couldn't find a list of founding members, or any indication this person is an active Nigerian politician or officeholder. --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 'Alhaji Labaran' gives some more google hits, but it seems they can refer to more than one person. Alhaji Labaran Inuwa is the National Organising Secretary of PDP[55][56], which would be a notable person (PDP is the biggest party in the most populous country in Africa). There is also 'Alhaji Labaran Abdu Maderi', who is a Kano State legislator[57], who would also be notable enough to have an article. Unclear if Alhaji Sani is the same individual as any of these. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above, Alhaji is an honorific (for Muslims who have completed the hajj to Mecca, so searching on it is about as useful as searching on "Mr." --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No there is a slight difference here. Many people take 'alhaji' as part of their name, they have it as their name in passports, id-documents, etc. In west africa, there are many 'Alhaji's who never did hajj themselves, is sometimes a name inherited from relatives, etc. ~Many people have no other 'first name' than Alhaji, at least in day-to-day-conversations. --Soman (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that clarification. --Dhartung | Talk 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "founding" is not an indication of notability per se. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to inabaility to find sources on search attempts (I also tried Academic Search Complete and Amazon.com). I was not able to make many improvements. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to People's Democratic Party (Nigeria) because he seems to be a notable person (but not by Wikipedia's standards). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedemonhog (talk • contribs)

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. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Kwang- do[edit]

This martial art is not notable. The few sources that assert any kind of notability come directly from the style's own website. RogueNinja_talk 10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominatior, delete RogueNinja_talk 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The style is notable, as we can all clearly see, Choi kwang do is world wide and mentioned in every martail magazine, we have proved notable, this is just another dig at me from rogueninja. Not notable are you kidding, its one of the largest martial arts in the world, see the locations on the web site, also see indian times, also see tae kwon time hall of fame, aslo combat all of fame Ralph Allison, there si 400 schools in th uk and 1000s across the world, usa, europe, asia, canade, new zealand ect. laughable10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above was left by User:Diamonddannyboy, the page's creator. RogueNinja_talk 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes thank you RogueNinja for to sign, but thanks for point that out, cheers.Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see history from other editors saying that it meets notable ctriteria, kwang Jo Choi the found of Choi kwang do was one of the original Grand Masters of Tae kwon do a korean fighting art, he was responsible for the spread of Tae kwon do to the USA, Kwang Jo choi meets WP:ATHLETE criteria at the highest level. Aslo he heads the large internation organisation Choi kwang do, but the Kwang Jo Choi article has not been put up for deletion, more personal again I believe. We have also used other reliable sources from around the world, not just the CHoi kwang do web site, but article from combat magazine, tae kwon do time, men health and Hindu times from india, it world wide, and very notable. Thanks again. 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bilby removed notabilty tag as article now proves notable.11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Reference proves notable ^[1]--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Indian Times, also choi kwang do has been the news world wide, see CNN and Fox ect.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RogueNinja may have bias interest in martial arts hence the name Rogue Ninja, Ninjas were sent down from the moutians of Japan to kill the enermy the samuri, yet the samuri live on, Sun Zu said you must know you 100 % and your enermy 100% if you know you 50 and your enermy 50, you will win half and lose half, this is all said in a friendly manner and is ment to lighten the mood of a some what un funny AFD. Good luck my Ninja Friend and may we meet again on the battle field of this mighty editing war. Pil-Suhng!!--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion I have no idea what you just said. You claim to be a native english speaker on your user page, but I dont think that is true. RogueNinja_talk 11:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain, what did you not understand, about the above message, I am tring to lighten the mood, yet again you make personal attacks about my English, I am from England I speak English, I am tring with you Rogue, why the attacks my friend why ? What do you meen, is it some wikipedia Joke about my editing that only newbies dont get, please fill me in, what is the problem, can I do any thing to resolve this issue.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe this will help to prove notable, now choi kwang do is based in Alanta, do we agree, so why if it is not notable, is it being talked about in a UK magazine [[58]] mmmm let me think !!! In the words of Bruce Lee, 'Don't Think feel' feel the positive energy Ninja, feel it my friend, Karma --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Is the above reference from RogueNinja about my ethnic back ground ie Romany or are you just kidding, also RogueNinja could you put your thoughts about the article, why you think it is not notable on the talk page, would that not have been the first step before afd.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I don't believe that the comment from RogueNinja was about your ethnic background. It is, I would suggest, fair comment to say that your use of the English Language has certain "quirks". I would also suggest that it is not doing your cause any favours to leap to an assumption that somebody is doing you down because of your Romany background. Please WP:AGF, and unless something is VERY clearly an ethnic attack, assume that it isn't. Quite apart from anything else, it is in your interests to do so, as if people feel that they have to tread on eggshells around you, lest you interpret it as an ethnic slur, they will undoubtedly be less inclined to work with you. Mayalld (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks well sourced to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article has established notability, and while it needs work there isn't a case to answer - at least not on the grounds on which it's been nominated It has several articles referenced, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the website, and most of which are reliable sources. The article did have significant problems, and needs a fair bit of development, but I can't see any problems that wouldn't be handled through the usual editing processes. - Bilby (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree with keeps, I believeRogueNinja may have a conflict of interest with choi kwang do coming from a traditional back ground of karate, I to come from a traditional back ground, and have sent friendly comments to Rogue about Choi kwang do see his talk page, hopefully he can see the benefits of this art, problems with most people in martial arts and across the world is they believe there is Karate, kick boxing and Judo, and that it, how ever there are many martial arts, but only one uses biomechanics and that CKD, it is notable, hopefully we can iron out any other bits that need doing.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we Not get into style vs style, 'what-the-public-believe' and linage wars as they are completely irrelevant in an AfD debate. P.S claiming it is the only one to use biomechanics is tenuous in the extreme, as there are, as you point out many marital arts. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not getting into style Vs style or Linage im not in martial art politic, I have trained in most of the traditional styles and have over 30 years martial art experience, Choi kwang do is the only martial art using Biomechanics because it it a modern science and not a traditional style using lock out movements.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err where dose Tai Chi use lock-out movements? My point is you do not know about every MA out there, for example boxing & other sport arts include aspects of biomechanics, though they may not refer to it as such --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "I have trained in most of the traditional styles" Ok there are over 100 styles listed in {{Martial arts}} and some of those, jujutsu, karate and kung fu for example, are collective descriptions of 30+ styles so even ignoring 'modern' ones we are talking well over 200 different styles listed on wikipedia (and then their are those not here...) Please don't try and overstate you experience, while you may well be very experienced in you area remember just how big a topic this is. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above I have trained in the more known martial arts, such as Karate, kickboxing, Tae kwon do, Judo, Ju jit su, Mauy Thai, BBJ, Boxing, and Kung fu , I agree there are many types of these arts ie Kung fu, wing Chun, wing tzun, tai chi, Tai Chi does have lock out movements'puch hands', and boxing does not use biomechanics, as the arm loks out at speed in a punch and retracts the same way, this is not boimechanics, just simply pushing off the rear foot is not biomechanics, I am and agree with you experienced and am a ABA boxing coach, so I know what I am talking about, but lets have this debate out side the afd please.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your correct other sports do use biomechanics, ie Golf, baseball and cricket, the golfer follows through with the club, a boxer does not follow through with a punch, he needs to hit, then retract the punch quickly, biomechanics are also healthy for the body. I also have a degree in sports science and am a fitness instructor, My degree was with the Greenwich university before you ask.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to (just) scrape in on notability. Mayalld (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. JJL (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is sourced, and while it needs some improvement in some areas, (e.g. more secondary sources a primary source for training police/military is not good) there is not good reason to delete it as their are multiple 2ndary sources given and would seem to establish notability. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did any of you actually read the sources? They fall into 3 categories. 1)They dont load, or cant be found online. 2)They talk about the grandmaster of the art, not the art itself. 3)They fail WP:RS. RogueNinja_talk 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read them. (Well, I had to, as I sourced most of them) :) Just to clarify: The two articles in The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution specifically discuss both the style and the grandmaster, as evidenced by their titles. The Cairns Post article is specifically about the style and the opening of new training centers in the region. The Times of India article is about an individual proponent, but he goes into some detail about the style. The Hindu Times article is short, but is about the introduction of the style to school girls. Both of these are available online. The Emergency Nurse article was a bit of a surprise - it specifically discusses the style as an option for emergency nurses. Odd, but notable. :) The Positive Health Magazine article is entirely about the style, online, and quite long, but I'm suspicious that it reads like an advertorial, so I wouldn't count it toward notability. The TKD magazine article is sourced from the organisation's website, and I would rather see the original. But while it is an interview with the Grandmaster, most of it is about the style. (I won't be happy until I confirm that it is a faithful copy of the original, though, but I suspect it is above board). The Newton Kansan is online and discusses the grandmaster and the style, but it also reads a bit like an advertorial, and I don't know the source, so I'm suspicious. In short: at least half of the references speak to notability. I'm not sure what links were broken, but I tested all the references, and they seemed ok. And there is no problem with using articles that are not online: they need to be able to be checked, but being online isn't a prerequisite. Otherwise we'd have an awful lot of trouble with books. :) - Bilby (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did they fail WP:RS, could you give some details? I skimmed for mentions & found them in the online ones & pointed out the primary source problem as the only exceptional claim others seem average. It dose need a re-work for tone in places. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

message to Bilby I have some TKD Magazines that I can scan in, if you would like me to send them to you as I did with the other ones let me know, also Paul Ciffton the editor of TKD Magazine and Combat Magazine maybe able to help he can be contacted through the Combat web site--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - independent sources found by the looks of things. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete This article was deleted last year, and we went through all this rigmarole last year. BMurray (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was it sourced @ that point? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last Choi kwang do article was done by another author, who did not source any of the references, this one strongly meets notabilty, no case to question, again talk has a bias because he trains in another style, and strongley supports koo self defence--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I'm aware, this isn't a reason for deletion unless the new material simply recreates the old. In this case the new material has been created from scratch, is sourced, and needs to be judged on its own merits. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think the art is still a little obscure LazyDaisy (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Obscure, have you gone onto the Choi kwang do website, have you seen how many locations they have, obscure, how can it be when it is based in the USA and is spoke about in India and News Zealand and europe, just google it and its on every page, its been in every martial art magazine.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LazyDaisy has not done alot since Feb 2007, a bit strange pops up in this afd--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems very widespread. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 2 April 2008 (GMT).
Delete As per rogue ninja's reasons PTluw777 (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see PTluw777 talk page he has been accused of sock puppeting withLazyDaisy and vandalising the old choi kwang do page, funny how both this editors have popped again in th afd--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Read the above wrong LazyDaisy accused PTluw777 of being a sock puppet and vandalism on previous choi kwang do, so has a bias.
Keep I used to subscribe to Tae Kwan Do Times and remembered Choi Kwang Do was even on the cover one month: TKD Times Jan. 2007 With all the other TKD Times references and the other references listed in the wiki article it seems to me that this is a valid and recognized martial art, though clearly not as well known as Tae Kwan Do or Muay Thai. The initial comment of it not being notable is clearly wrong and seems to come from a biased opinion. --Fortec —Preceding comment was added at 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — Fortec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I find myself in a quandry here! Whilst the source that has been supplied by Fortec (talk · contribs) is a good one, and whilst I have already gone Week Keep on this article, I can't help but suspect that Fortec (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet. First edits to defend an article at AfD, coupled with a failure to WP:AGF are highly suspect. Mayalld (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has several references, which indicates notability. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:09, 8 April 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. Unanimity that the page should be deleted. In addition, I find the nominator's arguments to be particularly persuasive and the secondary sources in the article are weak. TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinnett ARES[edit]

I prodded the article and just noticed that it had under gone AfD before, so I'm bringing it back. The article fails WP:N, the group is not notable. They have never been covered by a non-amateur radio publication and have never recognized for their services by any source outside the amateur radio community. Having big radios isn't notable, providing a service to the community during a disaster and being covered in the news for it is. The article fails WP:V and WP:OR as it doesn't cite a single secondary source, being based only on first-party sources and/or first-hand accounts. As for the arguments of the last AfD. It should not be redirected to ARES, no other articles link to the article and redirecting a local chapter to the national organization serves no purpose. It should also not be merged, the article has no information that would be useful to the Amateur Radio Emergency Service article. BJ^Talk 10:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is effectively a chapter of a national organization and as such should not have their own article per WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 11:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a single, un-notable chapter of a national organization. --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 1 April 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, fails WP:BAND. Black Kite 09:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scene Aesthetic[edit]

Seemingly very non-notable band. Prod removed by another editor without comment or alteration. tomasz. 10:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band has released an album on iTunes, which received good "air time" there. I believe that alone should contend for notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Deadeye (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 April 2008
- It doesn't; pretty much anyone can put out an album and get it on iTunes. tomasz. 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete iTunes doesn't mean ANYTHING about the noteworthiness of a band. Plus the article has been nominated and/or deleted once before. Plus, the article is too short and poorly written. Cra sh U nderride 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was nominated for deletion the first time by the same person who nominated it this time -- not two separate people. Moreover, being too short and poorly written isn't grounds for deletion. It just needs some additions and cleaning up. --Crushti (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability provided in the article, unable to find any. Fails WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll concede that iTunes doesn't make a band notable. But it's not just a band that nobody except locals know. Red Deadeye and I have never been within maybe a thousand miles of a performance, but we both know its music. Furthermore, it's not just isolated recognition. I know tons of people here who are fans of the band. There are only two reasons why you might consider it non-notable: 1) their fan base and support stems from the internet and 2) their record producer isn't very well known. Well, in the former case, viral internet fads find themselves noted all over Wikipedia, and I feel that, in the latter case, a producer's lack of notability does not warrant a lack of notability for something. --Crushti (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You and others know them: WP:ILIKEIT. Viral internet fads are all over WP: WP:WAX. The producer's lack of notability is not a lack of notability for the band: We're looking for what is notable about the band, not what is not a lack of notability. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. The article mentions a tour—depending on the size of the tour, if "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" can be found, notability could be shown. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:15, 4 April 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. Singu larity 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Stevens[edit]

Last time I recall, Wikipedia was not a repository for resumés. Yet that's exactly what this looks like. Not up to WP notability standards, either. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 11:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spamela Hamderson 12:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Most of it is a copyvio from [59] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — unverifiable and not notable. EJF (talk) 15:54, 1 April 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 per lack of reliable sources or other clear indication of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Thoms[edit]

Author with one self-published book based on own thesis. Likely autobio. Speedy declined. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His book doesn't appear to be self-published actually (it made it on Amazon under a publisher), but with the current sources, he still appears to be a blogger/movie reviewer with no notability. I can't find anything on google to suggest that he's been in the media. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lulu.com is a vanity press that distributes through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. It's very good, actually, but still counts as self-publishing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book is in fact self-published, as DC points out. There is nothing else by way of sources to suggest subject passes standard of WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 12:17, 7 April 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-m t 13:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optivus Proton Therapy, Inc.[edit]

Not notable company. Article is pure marketing. Incorrect translation of Latin. Probable WP:COI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the COI has been confirmed... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - pretty obvious spam – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with comments above.Scray (talk) 00:28, 2 April 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 WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Stupidity[edit]

PROD removed by author without comment. This is an unsourced neologism and Wikipedia is not for first publication of something made up one day, even if the day is April 1st. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to computer senility (Red Dwarf)? --Merovingian (T, C) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is a rather vague term. Move to artificial stupidity (note the capitalization) and disambiguate. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: the article has changed since nomination - it no longer claims Wikipedia as first use of the term, and has provided a source; but that is only a rather random discussion in some kind of blog; I don't think it sufficiently establishes use and notability of this neologism. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. Unless article creator can provide better cites.. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page with all the meaning the term has ~~Delete~~ On google I can find lots of uses for "artificial stupidity", but none uses the definition in the article, and they don't use it a noun like this salon.com article talking of how computers are too stupid to take over the world or an article on the Journal of Unlikely Science that talks about "stupid computers that were able to demonstrate behaviours such as ignorance, bigotry and even a penchant for golf fashion". More damning evidence is that it does not appear with this meaning on the c2.com wiki about programming [60], this almost certainly means that it's not widely used on programming at all --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be nothing more than a play-on-words of Artificial Intelligence, not an actual subject in computer science. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - I was going to vote delete, as I could only think of a few minor uses (The Economist in '92, articles relating to the Ecomonist's piece (SIGART '92) and Salon's piece). But a search on Google Scholar turns up 143 hits - that's enough to make a reasonable article. I should have searched first. - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry - the more I look into this the more I think there is something to it. Surprising, really. :) Good articles by Loebnitz and others suggest that there's enough to this to make it viable. If it survives AfD, or I get time, I'd probably like to play with this one. - Bilby (talk)
  - Actually, all those papers are not talking about what the article talks about. The article is about a programming technique for discovering bugs by tweaking the intelligence to be stupid. That paper is measuring the stupidity of AI systems. Notice that you can change an article to improve it during to nomination so it gets saved, so you could just edit the article with these sources and the meanings they use, and save the article. Many articles get saved because they get improved during nomination (and because of people looking at them because of nomination and deciding to improve them). This article could do with a "other meanings on AI field" section. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. :) I been spending so much time on the Turing test that I immediately connected the term with the papers I've been working with in that area, as per the introduction and the Salon reference. I agree completely with you: in the manner in which it is described in the article, it is non-notable, and I apologise for any confusion there. So the issue is whether it is worth building on from the existing article or not, given that the term has value, even if the article's approach to it does not. - Bilby (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, the term is probably notable. It may be, however, that each of its meanings for separate is not. I guess we can do a desambiguation listing each of the meanings --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These clowns stumbled upon a solid topic. [61] [62] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 (talk • contribs)

* Delete or maybe rewrite/redirect As it stands its mostly speculation about a possible future use for the term. Surely this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Keep if its usage as a term for the stupidity of AI systems can be expanded sufficiently, if there is insufficient to say then merge into AI article and redirect to appropriate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment As suggested I've started a rewrite, but I don't have access to most of my journals from here. It is little more that a stub right now, but it covers more ground than the original, and there are a lot of supporting references once I get back, as well as three other areas in which the term is used in AI that I haven't touched yet (I don't want to add anything unreferenced at this point). The original article, as recommended, should have been deleted. Having looked into it more I still support my own and other's claims that the term is notable, in spite of the original article, so my feeling is still that the article should stand, subject to continued expansion and possible renomination if this doesn't work out in a couple of months. As an aside, I considered a merge, but the topic seems rather interesting and should be able to stand on its own. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rewrite is already much improved. --BrucePodger (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems well written/sourced and notable to me. —Scouter Sig 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - Keep. After Bilby's rewrite, the article is now worthwhile and can clearly be a good basis for development. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 7 April 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 was a clear consensus that the page should be kept. The overall view was that the real-world context was sufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion Hotel[edit]

The article contains in-universe information about a fictional concept. Since the first AfD, no convincing secondary sources have been added to the article, nor is there any clear real-world context. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. (Yes, I know it's not strictly speaking a character) -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Angel (TV series), as per WP:FICTION. No real world notability is claimed for this fictional location.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AGree. Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While "lack of real-world context" is a oft-used blunt weapon in the AfD arsenal against fictional entities, it seems to me that this article actually does contain real world context about the external filming location and the production rationale about the Hyperion's creation and design. I've found these Buffy and Angel articles quite easy to reference as there are so many books about the the series... yes, I'll have a look through some and add what I can. --Canley (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Real-world information such as the above is important for following the guidelines for writing about ficiton. The key for demonstrating notability, though, is secondary sources independent of the production. It is easy to get the two kinds of needed information confused, given how much shorthand gets slung around in AfDs. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above.Londo 06 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of real-world notability is provided. (The filming location doesn't exactly count.) Terraxos (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure the filming location counts, Production information like that is exactly the sort of external real world information tha is appropriate and in fact very much wanted. DGG (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that information like this is wanted. However, I disagree that there's sufficiently much information here to support notability. This information is contained in just one line in the trivia, and based on a two-paragraph source. Why would this warrant an entire article? If this piece of information is really so important, it can easily be mentioned in the main article on the TV show. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the consensus reached in the previous discussion and notability to people in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per preceding. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per arguments detailed by editors above.Fronsdorf (talk) 20:50, 6 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Féliz[edit]

WP:COI bot identified this as possibly written by the subject herself. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and most probably WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a case of WP:AUTO; the creator is an SPA whose user name matches the article subject's deviantart page name. No notability asserted; google doesn't find anything either. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP per WP:Cool Beans and Gayelle.NewAtThis (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand upon that? I can't find anything in WP namespace called "cool beans", and I don't see the connection to Gayelle or its AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~how can i expand on a joke? haven't you ever heard the expression cool beans? that's so gayelle yo. anyways, i say keep, she seems notable to me IMHONewAtThis (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails this policy. ~EdGl 21:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references that establish notability. Google shows her being all over the net but no one talking about her being all over the net (which is what we need). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, give me two newspaper articles written on her and I'll change my vote.. but I could not find anything on her.Callelinea (talk) 03:07, 2 April 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, fails to meet WP:BIO Dreadstar † 04:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Reinoza[edit]

Because it was created by user Reinoza, this article drew the suspicions of our WP:COI bot. Extremely minor, non-notable artist. No third-party WP:RS. Claims to have achieved notability through a "spiritual experience." You'll have to read this one to believe anybody would actually post such a thing, complete with copies of the non-notable paintings. Qworty (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTO. No assertion of notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The artist is notable but the article need alot of work done on it.. The artist's statement needs to be removed and only the verifiable facts should be included since it was written by the artist himself. Callelinea (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons listed above. Also, article appears to be extensively edited by the subject. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: awards and museum presence not even borderline for visual artist notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from WP:BIO:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. No, not without substantial manipulation of the word "peers"

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No. "People have souls and it is that which I wish to paint" is hardly groundbreaking.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No book, no film, and absolutely zilch on Google Books, Scholar, or Web - not the ultimate test, but very telling, especially for an artist whose artwork was entirely created in the 21st century.

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or significant libraries. The most significant monument seems to be this article. The most significant exhibition is the Galeria Claudia, which from what I can gather on Google seems to be a local "hole in the wall", a step down from a local suburban civic center. No significant critical attention (see previous paragraph). No permanant display beyond "CSIM-303 A Street", which doesn't seem to be mentioned as such anywhere outside this article.

Ergo, delete as failure to meet the notability critera. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'It Looks like people do not google very well. Jorge Reinoza did not write this article. Reinoza is a project. We, Seven students from France, we are trying to let our countries in the Uropean Community to know about new American artist. We copy and paste from Reinoza.com (so, the intention of the web page was not to be in Wikepedia. We are creating www.reinoza.com has a part of our project) Us, the students, call ourselves "The dreamer team". We created Reinoza from thedreamerteam@gmail.com. It looks like the previous writers did not google "Museo de Arte Contemporaneo Alejandro Otero" in Caracas. http://www.maccsi.org/ It works directly with MOMA. We, the students, we are really learning the way that Wikepedia and all kind of searchers work. If you need our names, do not hesitate to ask for them. Thank you, and sorry for our English, at least we consider that we express better than Miss North Carolina, an artist under the previous critical points of views because Shes was exposed in National T.V."The person is regarded as an important figure: Nobody need to be important to be an artist: Look at the case of Van Gogh that did not sell any painting, and was inside an asylum. (Was Van Gogh an artist?) What about the case of Marcel Duchamp. Is Duchamp an artist?

ART lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online)

Artist

noun a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination

This is a definition of Art from Britannica: ART lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online)

A definition of Artist from Princenton.edu: artist, creative person (a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination) People does not need to be famous to be consider an artist. Remember: << 1 Corinthians 3:13 >> New American Standard Bible (©1995) each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. King James Bible Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Thank you (The Dreamer Team) thedreamerteam@gmail.com(User talk:Reinoza) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- since the AfD has started--and largely through the contributions of the article subject--the article has become much less encyclopedic and much worse; recommend blanking or reverting to the AfD state immediately, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also removed the opinion spam added to this AfD, but found on the article. See history for more info. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Dear Myke Cuthbert" You wrote: awards and museum presence not even borderline for visual artist notability. In France we understand they are important museums and artists all around the World.We a sorry if your vision is xenophobic. Now we understand a lot of the American system. It is a big lesson. We really want this article to be deleted thedreamerteam@gmail.com(User talk:Reinoza) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The aritcle's author has now admitted, in the article itself, that the article's purpose is "to promote new Latin American artist in Europe using public and new technologies." I ask the user to read WP:SOAP. And no, this is not an American guideline. It is an INTERNATIONAL wikipedia guideline, and applies to the French Wikipedia as well. Qworty (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikepedia is trying to push itself as a public dictionary with an amazing marketing strategy. It is normal for any student that works in the XXI century to believe that it is public, like all the comments against wonderful museums and exhibitions that the users have no idea about. For our system education (In Europe in general) ethnocentrism and stereotypes are not valid: Ethnocentrim is Viewing other peoples and cultures from the standard of one's own cultural assumptions, customs, and values. You assume that American culture and American companies are the guideline of International standards. We have a big fight with Microsoft in Europe because the same problems. We really are happy because we are learning. We do not want to hurt our professor and his reputation. The idea of Wikepedia was ours We apologize again because we are learning. We are students. When we wrote "to promote new Latin American artist in Europe", we mean, to let Europe to know the existance of new wonderful artist from this side of the world. WE are from Paris, the most important artistic city in all the world, and you cannnot deny that. We learn from our classes that everything in America is politically correct, and people has to live with misunderstandings or misinterpretations. WE had in our plans to promote 10 New American Artist. The dreamer project is a big project. After this experience, we decided to write to the media in France to let then know the way that wikepedia works and the opinion of the experts in Art from wikepedia and America. Thank you! thedreamerteam@gmail.com(User talk:Reinoza) 01:40, 6 April 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, which defaults to keep. However, there is some confusion here. This isn't an article about a nightclub. It is an article about one particular evening's festivies that happen to happen at a club. A club Night. The Club itself, as pointed out below, doesn't have an article. Without references and other improvements, and with more clarity, I would support a renomination in 4-6 weeks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nag Nag Nag[edit]

Hard to see how in the world this is notable. No notability asserted. No WP:RS presented. And what's with that photo? This should have been deleted long ago. Qworty (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Spam. Not notable. Alchemy12 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Definitely notable club night. Perhaps other editors are not the most familiar with the subcultures in question. Have seen multiple references in NME, The Face, Dazed & Confused, Attitude, i-D, and that's just from memory, among others. Presently at work, but i will find and add sources later. The picture is a nonsense and should go. Unless this is all an April Fool's joke in which case, kudos, you got me. tomasz. 10:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it appears in several travel guides to London and various news articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source source source so we can keep keep keep. Links in above comments should be included in the article in order to save it. Without them, this would be an easy "delete" call. B.Wind (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can night clubs even be notable? –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can nightclubs be notable? At a push, i'd say "maybe", yeh. tomasz.
Keep per WP:HEY. I'd close the debate, but I want to see what others say. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. Once an irrelevant reference, and even more irrelevant image, have been removed nothing that is left is sourced. Yes there are sources available but I am not able to assess them since they are mostly behind paywalls. However, they do not seem particularly in depth. If the night is notable surely the club is more so. A page on the club might be a better way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 20:04, 8 April 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 withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1987 (number)[edit]

~~I don't know where to begin. I have no idea what criteria this would fit, but it just feels so wrong. It's not patent nonsense, but it's close.~~ Withdrawn due to significant improvement.Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Weak Keep~~ ~~Move~~ Keep It is in slightly better shape then when I found it and it would full under Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, but other than being prime there is not alot you can say about 1987. Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moving idea seems the best.Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:PrimeHunter fixed it up it is a worthwhile article and further underlines the Interesting number paradox. Aiden Fisher (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 1900 (number), as per 400 (number) which covers integers 400 to 499. --Xiaphias (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. Mathematics articles aren't my strong suite though. If you want to get it started I'll glady help out though.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate info per WP:NOT. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 1000 (number), as per WP:NUM#How far to go?. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 1000 (number), per Coanda. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 1000 (number), as above. Brentoli (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I expanded it to show that 1987 is sexy, alcoholic, rocks, and more. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great job Prime.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's really hard to treat people respectfully when they say things like "per WP:NUM#How far to go?". Why not just include John F. Kennedy in the article people whose names start with "K"? After all, we can't have a separate article on every person whose name starts with "K"! The policy at WP:NUM#How far to go? actually had some language to the effect that "numbers are infinite" until I corrected it a few minutes ago. In other words, it was not written by informed or thoughtful persons. (Each integer is FINITE, not infinite. There are INFINITELY many of them. But they are finite. That is universally standard usage.) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:10, 2 April 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 closure) with strong consensus to merge left to article editors to act upon. Sole delete preference was from indef blocked sock. Skomorokh 01:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie McClung Elementary[edit]

Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references for notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge/redirect to Calgary Board of Education as a quick Google search seems to indicate that this is within there jurisdiction, otherwise delete. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 08:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable schoolNewAtThis (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Calgary Board of Education per the draft guidance cited by nominator. TerriersFan (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calgary Board of Education. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calgary Board of Education as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:18, 1 April 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 Calgary#Education. --jonny-m t 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almadina (school)[edit]

Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references of notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to ~~[[Calgary Board of Education]~~ Calgary#Education per the draft guidance cited by nominator. TerriersFan (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as nn. District articles need the love! CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calgary#Education until a better sourced Almadina School Society or Almadina Language Charter Academy article can be made. N.B. Alberta charter schools work independently of school districts. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes sense, plus there's no consensus as where to merge/redirect it, which is for discussion rather than an afd decision. Wizardman 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a consensus as to the merge target now. Also, a merge discussion is hard after a page has been deleted :-) TerriersFan (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per TerriersFan (and WP:SCHOOL). • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 7 April 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 delete as copyvio from [63] Pegasus «C¦T» 11:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Caribbean Players (footballer)[edit]

More like sports commentary from a school newspaper rather than an encyclopedia article. Opinion piece, no notability established, no sources. Deprodded. Weregerbil (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newspaper article, and not an encyclopedia article. There is no evidence that this event will have lasting notability, but if any of these players sign up professionally then bios on each of them will be in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT. Also WP:NOTE per [64]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. Pretty much copied from here and in particular this press launch, which is where the images originate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 1 April 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 closure) given lack of delete preferences apart from the nominator. Skomorokh 01:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kali's teeth bracelet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable, briefly produced fetish item without any verifiable reliable sources. Neitherday (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's not the most prominent thing in the world, but its existence seems to be fairly widely known among BDSM-type enthusiasts of male chastity play, among whom it still has a few fans who construct home-made imitations of it. It's also mildly notorious among those in the know for the role it played in certain versions of an extreme female-supremacist ideology. It's unfortunate that User:Neitherday can't seem to get past the fact that the main statement from the circle of individuals responsible for the original creation and/or promotion of the device ca. 1997 which is now still publicly accessible happens to be located on Geocities... AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that so little about the creation of the device is available demonstrates it's lack of notability. Neitherday (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot more information available on the web about ten years ago, but the great majority of it has suffered from "link rot" and the decline and fall of the Femina Society. Maybe some of that info is still available in old Usenet postings at groups.google.com and old versions of web-pages preserved on archive.org. I don't see how such material would really make a great difference to keeping the article (since sufficient information about the extreme matriarchal ideology of the Femina Society and the role that the KTB played in that ideology is still fairly easily discoverable by simple Googling), but if you think it would make a great difference, then I'm willing to dig around for it a little... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems as if you are basing the notability of this product on the its purported importance to the "ideology" of the Femina Society. However, I question if the Femina Society itself is notable. I come up with less than 300 hits on Google for "Femina Society", and many hits of those are not referring to the fetish group at all.

There are many short lived commercial sex toys out there, they don't all deserve a page on wikipedia. Neitherday (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- I just got through telling you that most of the websites originally relating to the Femina Society have disappeared over time. Furthermore, the KTB was not a "short lived commercial sex toy". It was barely "commercial" at all, since it was a handcrafted item sold in relatively small quantities by female supremacists mainly to other female supremacists, and the ideological motive was probably at least important as the profit motive. And the original inventors or sellers of the item didn't really view it as a "sex toy" in the usual sense at all, but rather a device by which a woman could maintain and increase her rightful dominating power over a man. And it's not really "short-lived" either, since while it soon stopped being available through the original sellers, a small but steady stream of enthusiasts have continued to craft their own home made versions over the years (many of the pages turned up in this search refer to such attempts: "kali" @ tpe.com). I don't know why you always bristle when I refer to the fact (which is true) that the Kali's teeth bracelet originated from the female-supremacist ideology held by the members of the Femina Society, but this habit of yours is becoming distinctly annoying by this point. Frankly, I wish you had just left the article "Kali's teeth bracelet" completely alone, since none of your edits have been real improvements, and the article seems to have been better off before you started subjecting it to your attentions. AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OWN, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Neitherday (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a violation of Wikipedia policy to realize that not everybody can usefully contribute to every single article. Part of being a good Wikipedia editor is knowing your own limitations, and gracefully refraining from editing articles which you're realistically unlikely to improve (I certainly have my own areas that I stay away from)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ad hominem attack. The usefulness of my edits is not defined by whether or not you agree with them. This page is for discussing the proposed deletion and not your views of me. Neitherday (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: This search ("kali" OR "KTB" @ tpe.com) should turn up all the pages on the most prominent Internet chastity belt information site which refer to the device... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google gets me a few sources, e.g. [65] [66]. One of my more interesting google searches in the name of finding sources BTW. Also, please, no personal attacks; let's just discuss the validity of the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, here's the 1905 version: http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/timely.htm ... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And here's an essay expressing the ideology of the Femina Society in relation to the KTB: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.women.supremacy/msg/37fd67f6d276a066?dmode=source -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first link JeremyMcCracken provided is a site selling a similar product.

The second link JeremyMcCracken provided is probably the best link I've seen for Kali's Teeth, but only briefly mentions it. I don't believe a brief mention is enough to help establish notability.

The first link provided by AnonMoos doesn't mention Kali's Teeth at all. The connection to Kali's Teeth Bracelet must be inferred. It is likely that the creators Kali's Teeth probably took inspiration from the older devise depicted. However, that does nothing to establish the notability of the modern Kali's Teeth Bracelet or the Femina Society. Neitherday (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second link proveded by AnonMoos is a USENET post. USENET posts are not reliable sources.

There is still nothing here that demonstrates that Kali's Teeth Bracelet is anywhere near notable enough to warrant it's own article on Wikipedia. -Neitherday (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- I consider it to be much more probable that the modern KTB creators invented their device completely independently of Dr. Foote's patent of 1906 (the details of the two devices are quite different). However, it shows that the basic idea has been recurring from time to time. And you asked for more information about the Femina Society, but when I turned some up, then you didn't like the format it was in. If you want information about the Femina Society, then archived Usenet posts will be the best way to find it, since the great majority of Femina Society websites have been down for years, and I don't have too many old URLs to try at archive.org. Frankly, the combination of your adherence to narrow rigid technicalities of the letter of policies, together with your habit of making broad sweeping assertions about the subject-matter which happen to be factually wrong, is exactly what I haven't liked about your attitude towards this article from the beginning... AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I request that you keep your comments focused on this deletion discussion and not on your opinion of me. -Neitherday (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notablity isn't the only problem with this article. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". There simply doesn't seem to be enough verifiable information out there to expand this article past a stub without adding a boatload of original research. -Neitherday (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the various versions of this are widely advertised, and appear in the sort of fiction you'd expect to find them. Sources are findable, though they probably wont be from major newspapers--though one never knows these days. DGG (talk) 03:33, 5 April 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 --JForget 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptishish's Shadow Debute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scriptishish's Shadow Debute

Non encyclopedic content. Ctempleton3 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:NOR. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP: MADEUP Alchemy12 (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOWTO. This is something for StrategyWiki. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A1. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. What a mess of an article... ~EdGl 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Hard to see how any of this is notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia. Qworty (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, kiddo. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and I recommend someone talk to Scriptishish about creating articles like this. Pretty clear violation of WP:MADEUP and WP:HOWTO.Red Phoenix (Talk) 01:57, 4 April 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 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Jane Fry[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO as no secondary references to importance given. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, there are few sources online but most of her dancing career was in the 1980s, and artistic director at the National Theatre, Melbourne is probably one of the handful of most influential positions in Australian ballet. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to doubt that sources can be found. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google shows up a few potential sources. This is unlikely to become a complehensive bio, but there is info out there. -- Mark Chovain 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Am article author. I wrote this article after others had added her name to two other articles, so I was trying to eliminate red links. I'm sure other information will be added in the future by those with access to other, non-internet, sources. Notable because she danced the lead for the English National Ballet, in ballet terms the equivalent of a lead in a Hollywood film, and is now the artistic director of the National Theatre, Melbourne, a notable cultural institution. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a simple Google search shows a few promising leads for reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The reference in the article provides verification, and it really makes me despair of Wikipedia when I see that that anyone could question that the artistic director of the National Theatre in Melbourne should have an article when we give notability to hundreds of articles about minor elements of the Star Wars Universe. Is this supposed to be a serious encyclopedia or not? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, we really don't give all that much coverage to minor elements of the Star Wars universe. Or major elements. There are better notability grievances out there. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:47, 4 April 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 closure) given lack of delete preferences. Skomorokh 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2B1 conference[edit]

This is an unimportant conferance less than 150 people attended. It appears to have no encyclopedic importance. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2B1 conference was a significant milestone in the development of the OLPC project, which is of considerable encyclopedic value. --Iwoj (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to the proper page on the OLPC project. In and of itself, the conference doesn't seem notable, although it is certainly notable in regards to it's guiding said project. That is where this information belongs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a reference for the Nation1 relation, and now that it has a relationship with more than one such project, I think it should be kept. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conference occurred in 1997 and the OLPC project did not begin to appear publicly until around 2005. From how [this article] recites a tongue-in-cheek history of 2B1 in relation to the OLPC project, I would suggest that the 2B1 article be allowed to live on and evolve its own body of text before being merged. It may hold some useful corollary content to not only the OLPC project, but other projects relating to education, technology and development. Give us a week to flesh out the article. --Iwoj (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ per Celanor. It doesn't seem notable outside of OLPC, but it's definitely an important historic predecessor, so it should be mentioned there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inaccurate to consider the 2B1 conference a predecessor to the OLPC project. The 2B1 conference informed the OLPC, but it was by no means the sole contributor to the OLPC concept, nor was the OLPC project the only notable outcome of the conference. --Iwoj (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What were some other ones, and where can we find sources verifying this information? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I stand corrected. I couldn't find any other outcomes besides Nation1 and OLPC, despite the many fascinating people who were there. I've merged the text. How do with delete and redirect this page? --Iwoj (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You replace the existing page with #REDIRECT [[OLPC Project#Section you put it in]]. You might want to wait a day or two before actually doing it, however, as someone else might be able to turn something up to demonstrate the notability of the conference that we weren't able to find. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing to keep, now that the link to Nation1 is there, it wouldn't be appropriate to redirect. Since it's tied to both Nation1 and OLPC, I think it deserves expansion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want to agree with you, I can't find anything I can use to relate the two. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I fail at search. I'll fix it. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:28, 2 April 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 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jessee[edit]

~~non notable, poorly sources, doesn't meet wp BIO NewAtThis (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Delete per meNewAtThis (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is superfluous to enter your own vote, since AFD is based on consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote however i please.68.27.12.1 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable early pro skateboarder with his own 2004 documentary.[67][68] Needs sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Alchemy12 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article needs expansion, not deletion. Plenty of coverage reliable secondary sources including the San Francisco Chronicle [69] and many more [70]. - Dravecky (talk!) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In depth SF Chronicle article plus others represent reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as disruptive nomination by banned sockpuppeteer. Jfire (talk) 01:14, 3 April 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 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ebendorf[edit]

WP:BIO criteria not met. WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Note Number 3 is critical in WP:BIO "Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references..." this means no matter how many reproduction of original artwork that is put in books does not count toward significance. Unless author can provide sources to the significance of this person (other than reproduction of original artwork.) I move to delete this article. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if we don't have enough unbias secondary sources we are doing the guy a diservice, either being too positive or negative. he's nn.NewAtThis (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily confirmed as a major American jewelry/metalwork artist. Needs more sources, but a retrospective exhibition at the Renwick Gallery is not the same as an exhibition at any old gallery, it is recognition of historical importance among the pantheon of American artists and artisans. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If the Smithsonian Institution has cause to call him a notable artist, display his art[71], and interview him at length, plus if his artwork is widely published, then he's clearly notable. Does this article need rewriting? You bet. But reliable secondary sources are widely available [72] [73] from 1970s New York Times articles to an article in Antiques and Arts Weekly in March 2008. - Dravecky (talk!) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but only on the basis that I have actually heard of the guy! Article needs rewrite and better sources. --Alchemy12 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit that this is not a very good article, but I believe Robert Ebendorf is an artist whose biography is worthy of being a wikipedia article. If you google the man’s name or pick up a book about contemporary jewelry or metalsmithing you will find extensive information on the man and his artwork. I still have not finished the article, and this is the first time I have ever tried to make an article. Yesterday’s content was just a test run and is being added to today. Ginarheald (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for move

That page already exists at Robert ebendorf, move Robert ebendorf to Robert Ebendorf. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - noteable and sourceable. There's no need to delete as any material at the other instance of the article can be merged -- Whpq (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a personal exhibit at the Smithsonian American Art Museum , documented, so there's nothing more to be proven. Thats what notability consists of. And we don't delete for the absence of third party sources when the available ones are Reliable enough to show notability. Ginarheald, what is needed most is reviews of the exhibit and his work, in published sources. But Dravecky, they just have to exist, not to be readily available. And Alchemy, whether one has heard of the guy is irrelevant either way. DGG (talk) 06:57, 2 April 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 closure), per WP:SNOW. Nom requires advice on AFD nomination and procedure as this is clearly a bad nom. Porterjoh (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Ezzell[edit]

This guy seems not to be a famous homerun homer, article is patent original research, no reliable sources, no sources, no links, no internal links, not verified NewAtThis (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per aboveNewAtThis (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three seasons in major league baseball is enough to establish notability under WP:BIO. [74] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, playing in the majors meets WP:BIO. Nominator is advised, again, to be sure to review the relevant guidelines before making AFD a new hobby. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything in the present article can be verified by one of the many baseball reference sites across the internet. Major Leaguers have long been considered notable, because there is almost always enough information available to write at least a couple of paragraphs about them. Heck, maybe a month ago, we were able to expand an article on a guy who played one game in, like, 1877. Zagalejo^^^ 07:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as subject unquestionably meets Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes and this nomination is part of a recent pattern of improper AfD noms by NewAtThis. - Dravecky (talk!) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First ghit verifies that he played in the major leagues *and* there's actually RS coverage minus the one military records link, they're all him. Newatthis' Drive by AFds are getting old. I think s/he may benefit from a mentor. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Absolutely meets Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes. Please take a minute to read the guidelines before nominating more AfDs.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:58, 1 April 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 the future of this essay is now. Honestly I have never seen a conglomeration of words that look so meaningful and yet so devoid of real meaning, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Is Now[edit]

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is a pure essay. Cites no sources in any usable way. Fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Major original research. Grsz 11 05:54, 1 April 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 Withdrawn by nominator (non admin close). Dusti^{talk to me} 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Natochenny[edit]

There are no sources retaining to her notability, even if she is a voice actress. The article fails to address her Notability. In my opinion, the page is considered vanity. If you have any questions about this proposal, please let me know on my talk page. Harold 26 (c) 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pokemon is such a major TV-series that anyone voice-acting a major role as Ash Ketchum (the series' main protagonist) is notable. She has not voice acted the role as much as Veronica Taylor, but the notability between the two is comparable. I am having locating the best sources with Google, because there are message boards and wikis, but that she actually is the voice actor is at least independently verifiable. [75] Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO [76], [77]. I just don't see much in the way of significant coverage from reliable sources. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 11:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails WP:BIO--Alchemy12 (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep With a bit more work & less vandals it will become a great artical Richardson j (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She is a voice actress/actress, and just about every famous (or somewhat famoue) actor/actress, stage, TV or otherwise, has a page here on Wikipedia. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:25 PM US EDT Apr 1 2008
Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents (not a vote) - You see, just because she's a voice actress/actress, does not exactly mean she deserves a page, no offense. Not to mention there are other minor-to-major errors there on her page: No sources, no citation, and she is still not exactly notable, despite voice acting since around June-August 2006. In addition, her page is targeted by vandalism because of people who hate her voice acting. What's next? A Wikipedia page on the Rangers suck chant? Harold 26 (c) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a voice actress of a main character in a very well know and notable animated television series, she pass the criteria in WP:BIO#Entertainers. Granted that the article could use sources, but much of its content is based on the credits of the works she has been involved in. The remaining information, if not sourced to credits or other reliable sources, should be removed per WP:BLP. --Farix (Talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she's covered under the additional criteria of WP:BIO. However, voice actors are not specifically named, so she may count either as a "creative professional" or an "entertainer" - but I think either way she's covered.

One of the additional criteria for "creative professionals" is: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Surely Pokemon, massive franchise that it is, has been the subject of many independent books, articles and reviews even only since 2006. And if being the voice actress for the main character doesn't count as a "major role in co-creation", well, then, what does?

On the other hand, one of the additional criteria for "entertainers" is that they have: had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. She has played the main character in the Pokemon TV series since 2006, as well as two Pokemon movies. In addition, she played the main character of Alicia in Bullet Witch. These are significant roles in notable productions. (She also did the voice of the "Pokemon Trainer" in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which seems like a slightly less major role but having not played it I can't be 100% sure on that.)

So, whichever way you swing it, I think she's notable. And, by the way, a page being the target of vandalism is absolutely no reason to delete it! Vigilancy in reverting the vandalism, yes; deletion of the article, no. Also, Sjakkalle has provided a source that shows she is the voice actress for Ash, and here's one that shows she was the voice actress for Alicia in Bullet Witch: [78] These can easily be added to the article to solve its complete-lack-of-sources problem. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable dub voice actress who fails WP:BIO. Completely unsourced except seemingly from her own MySpace page and IMDB. Collectonian (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Part II - Well, if Tourette's Guy is not considered notable per our guidelines here, then I guess Sarah Natochenny isn't either, no offense to anyone. Even if she is the voice actress of Ash Ketchum, she just doesn't fit the mold of our notability guidelines. It's a tough decision, but the reason why I don't think she is notable is because she only has 2,680 Google hits [79]. She fails the "Google test", and that is one of the crucial parts of my notability test. So far, 4 for and 6 against. This looks to be a close race. Harold 26 (c) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the number of GHits is a critical part of your notability test, then it is a flawed test. See WP:GHITS as to why a Google test is not an indicator of notability or non-notability. The existence or non-existence of a article also does not reflect on the notability of a different subject, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'll also remind you that AFD is a discussion, not a vote. Those with stronger policy based comments will be waited more then those that are WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and your comments falls into the latter category. --Farix (Talk) 11:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per KittyRainbow's excellent analysis. (The "Pokemon Trainer" in Brawl is a playable character by the way.) Also, the nominator apparently doesn't understand what "vanity" refers to, or rather referred to, within Wikipedia policy. It applied only to pages created by their subjects. --erachima talk 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments I didn't know that, erachima. Sorry about misunderstanding the vanity policies. Harold 26 (c) 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She is the voice actor for one of the most recognisable TV shows and voices the main character, there is no doubt she is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement to Close AFD - I think we came to a good agreement about this debate. Just make sure sources are added, they're verifiable. This debate can be closed now, but make sure it doesn't get wrecked by Sarah's "haters," because they're quite common. Harold 26 (c) 06:36, 6 April 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. Singu larity 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popstarz[edit]

No WP:RS provided to establish notability. Only sources given are websites run by the parent company. Google search also fails to provide reliable third-party sources, just a lot of self-generated pages. Article has been edited by a user named Popstarz, who was identified as a problematic user by our WP:COI bot. This user created Tommy Moss, Trash palace, and The ghetto (club), which are all spam relating to the Popstarz company, and which are all up for AfD. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as usual to all 4 of the articles. BoL (Talk) 04:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad, nn subject. ~EdGl 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one at least makes a claim of notability. Any chance of finding WP:RS? I wonder if it's been written up in the news at all. Aleta ^Sing 02:42, 3 April 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 --JForget 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ghetto (club)[edit]

This article is brought to us by the same self-promotional account that gave us the related Tommy Moss and Trash palace articles, which are also up for AfD. No WP:N asserted and no WP:RS provided. It's all spam, all the time, through and through. Qworty (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BoL (Talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement, plus subject is nn. ~EdGl 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, advertisement. (If we had an article about every bar that ever existed...) Aleta ^Sing 02:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't mind a good article about every bar that existed. I might even show mercy to this one if its author(s) even tried to bring in some outside sources from the local gay press, whatever. As it stands, it obviously needs to be deleted. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:42, 3 April 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 --JForget 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trash palace[edit]

Just another bar--notability has not been established or even particularly asserted. No WP:RS. Author of the article also posted Tommy Moss, who works for the same company, Popstarz, that owns the bar. Author has the same name as the company, which made our WP:COI bot suspicious. Apparently this is one of a series of self-promotional business articles that were added on the same day [80]. Probably all of them should go. Qworty (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BoL (Talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-notable club. Self-promotion. Alchemy12 (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability isn't shown there. Dekisugi (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an ad, and poorly tries to assert notability. ~EdGl 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, advertisement. Aleta ^Sing 02:22, 3 April 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 --JForget 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Moss[edit]

Non-notable padded resume, identified by our COI bot as a possible violation of WP:COI, due to the fact that the article's author bears the same name as the company Tommy Moss works for. There are many people named Tommy Moss who show up on Google, but none of them appears to be this one. Notability has not been established, and no WP:RS have been offered. The only references are links to websites run by the company Moss works for. Qworty (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty blatant spam. Article contains no assertion of notability. —BradV 04:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just discovered mutiple speedies on this one [81], so it should probably be salted. Qworty (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. BoL (Talk) 04:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per related AFDs. NN, ad. ~EdGl 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and related articles, none have evidence of notability in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page. Aleta ^Sing 02:24, 3 April 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 both per lack of reliable sources or other indication of notability noting, however, that Janmedia hasn't been tagged in connection with this AfD but for its own. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest Media Server[edit]

A newly released and not yet notable software product. Wikipedia does not allow this sort of advertising, we are not a database of companies either. In this consideration I'd also like to include the parent article Janmedia for deletion, as there is not verification by reliable sources of notability. Keegan^talk 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is provided through reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both articles created by the same single purpose account. Neither the article on the company nor the article on the product make any claims of notability, and no third-party references are provided. —BradV 04:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably too new - [82] and [83]. No hint of notability here. Perhaps with time though. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a tangible product made by an international company with famous partners so I think it should be kept Tchefari (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is the sole contributor to the two articles in question, and has made little or no edits outside of those pages. —BradV 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my French profile to see my contribution to Wikipedia... :) Tchefari (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both because they fail WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The service is as famous as websites already present, no? Afrikfree (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. There is nothing famous or notable here, the software returns less than 100 results from Google and I found no media coverage in those results. Keegan^talk 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the closing administrator, the above user's only comment resides in this discussion - most likely a WP:SPA or a sockpuppet. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:41, 2 April 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-m t 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Nelson[edit]

Non-notable person and personal essay possibly written by the person itself. BoL (Talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom and per CSD A7 BoL (Talk) 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. How can you make and advertisement about a person? Marlith (Talk) 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, but still deserves to be A7'd. BoL (Talk) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it makes clear assertions of notability, regardless of whether we believe them. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Other editors may have missed the claim which if verified would pass WP:BAND: "...in her family's musical group "Those Nelson Kids" as they toured the U.S. during the summers of 1972 and 1973." If she toured nationally, no matter how long ago, she's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. What if the article was written by the person herself? That would be a COI breach and would need a massive rewrite. I apologize if I crossed into WP:IDONTKNOWABOUTIT or something. BoL (Talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, that's an assertion of notability for Those Nelson Kids, not for the person Laurie Nelson. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems like she might be notable, but it needs better sourcing to back up most of these claims. (e.g.: which awards did she win? Has she received any significant coverage from independent sources?) Terraxos (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many stabs at notability, none really adding up to anything. Jobbing entertainer, never a marquee act. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick look through Google hits revealed very little in the way of secondary sources. I would have to say this fails WP:BIO. —BradV 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO It's just a puff piece.Alchemy12 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The beauty pageant claims are also an argument for notability. A beauty pageant winner becomes a local celebrity for a year, with multiple public appearances, not just at the pageant itself. Bear in mind that the subject's beauty pageant days were well before Google started up, and the shortage of hits makes sense. YouTube is evidence that something was televised, even though it isn't normally considered a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a scrapbook. The list of issues atop the article is quite impressive, too. Even if she were notable enough for an article, this would need to be scraped clean and started anew.B.Wind (talk) 03:16, 8 April 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. Although a number of comments support merging the article, they all come with some serious caveats that do not appear to have been overcome. --jonny-m t 13:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drama Riding[edit]

Non notable neologism. Google hits were all related to this article. Prod removed without explanation. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article created by a very new editor. Please be patient. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article isn't badly written, but it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I suggest looking for another wiki where the editor can take their contributions. Terraxos (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've googled the terms "George Morris" "Drama Riding" and there was not one hit. Although not every source need to be from the internet, it does appear that this is such a new word that nobody knows about it yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until it gains some recognition as a term then the article is deceptive. -- BpEps - t@lk 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV essay for a protologism. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is more about a behavior than a new name for that behavior. See Talk:Drama Riding. --Una Smith (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google turns up nothing. If relevant, verifiable content turns up, merge to hunt seat as proposed in article. —BradV 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should be merged with hunt seat, IF verifiable references can be found. Dana boomer (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - articles that merit merging do not merit AfD and the editor who created this article has not been afforded the opportunity to merge or speedy delete. Also, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

--Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The editor who created the article has tagged it {{merge}}. --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was tagged with merge before it was brought to AfD ([84]). The edit you are referring to is probably where the AfD notice was removed from the page. —BradV 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked diffs and Bradv15 is correct. --Una Smith (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if the merge tag preceded the AfD tag, does the merge take precedence? Or do we continue here? --AeronM (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence is relatively unimportant on Wikipedia; consensus is very important. Consensus means we discuss until we all agree, with civility and without driving anyone away. --Una Smith (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real type of riding seen a the top horse shows today. It's been a problem for many years. Even George Morris, one of the greatest horsemen, has spoken against this type of riding. with me and in writing. I even have an article about him talking about proper form over fences. It's on the January 7th 2005 issue on the Chronicle of the Horse magazine on page 8 and 9. I have pictures I have personally taken myself at a top horse show to prove this riding is dangerous and I also have pictures of what correct riding form looks like, even on a back cracking hunter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiona22 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best argument for keeping is to edit the article to meet Wikipedia criteria. Can we do that? --Una Smith (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Hunt Seat or George Morris (if established by refs he is originator of term) until such time as the term has become more mainstream.... at that point it can always be split off into its own page. --AeronM (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete This is an article about a current fad within a particular riding discipline, really needs to be in an article about the discipline, not all by itself. Many, many dangerous riding practices out there, this is just one of many, ephemeral fad. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment If the article is unsourced original research, then we would be merging unsourced original research into an otherwise good article. That can't be the right answer. As for the article being new, OR is OR no matter how old it is. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the originator has provided refs which show that the phrase is indeed used and by whom (George Morris), so the issue would appear (to me) to be: does the article merit its own page? IMHO, i think that even if the page is fully fleshed out and perfectly referrenced, it is still more a merge item than a stand-alone item, at least at this point. --AeronM (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dittos. (OMG, I am agreeing with Aeron again! LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, are you feeling unwell?? (!) --AeronM (talk) 18:03, 4 April 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 --JForget 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suttonians Disco[edit]

unreferenced and unencyclopedic article on a non-notable local disco at a rugby club, not even worth merging to the article on Suttonians RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable location, no coverage from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete. No assertion of notability, no reliable citations, etc. As noted by nominator, subject is barely notable enough for a one line reference in the Suttonians RFC article itself. Let alone a stand-alone article. Guliolopez (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, nn. ~EdGl 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (Sometimes that is all that can be said.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reson to keep it though mabye put it as a section on Suttonian RFCMarkreidyhp 14:55, 4 April 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. Notwithstanding that I have !voted in this discussion myself, I feel that this should be closed, as it is one of very many bad faith AfDs created by this user, who is a possible sock (see here). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie Buddy[edit]

Non notable topic, no reliable sources, only one link, not the subject of non trivial published secondary sources. Not verified. Does not assert notability. NewAtThis (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.NewAtThis (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would imagine that all of the Ty lines are notable. This one seems to have some decent news coverage, although other sources will be hard to weed out amid all the vendor listings that Google throws up (at least it would be hard for someone as impatient as I). I would also imagine that these are especially notable as they were the first line to use a new type of fabric. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid to late 1990s, there were several magazines devoted to nothing but Beanie Babies and other Ty collectibles. Some newspapers even had a Beanie Babies column. I bet there are lots of articles about these things, although the magazines probably aren't electronically archived. Zagalejo^^^ 08:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - probably notable, but needs better sourcing to prove it. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Beanie Babies or to Ty. I've tried sifting through all the vendor listings and such and can't find anything specifically about "the buddies" only "the babies". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plenty of reliable secondary sources (including the Chicago Sun-Times) [85] and the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal [86] and so many more. Article needs expansion, not deletion! - Dravecky (talk!) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Smoochy the frog is clearly notable ;-) But there are plenty of sources available. I am confident that a reliable well-sourced article can be made with the sources available. EJF (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Popular product of popular company. ~EdGl 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourceable -- Whpq (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amazon.com describes several Beanie Buddies on its site. Coverage especially from a major on-line store such as Amazon.com can and does meet WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:22, 2 April 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 Boldly redirected by myself to L3 (CERN). The page's content was exactly the same as L3 (CERN), so I feel that this is a non-controversial redirect and probably didn't warrant discussion in the first place. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L3_experiment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/L3 experiment

This page is a nearly exact copy of L3 (CERN) Mjamja (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make redirect JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 1 April 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. I'll go ahead and create a redirect to The Vines for convenience's sake, but as I don't consider this part of the consensus feel free to change the redirect target in the future. --jonny-m t 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factory (Single)[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, there needs to be significant coverage for albums and songs to warrant their own single in reliable independent sources. The article itself mentions that the single was strictly limited in number of copies. Also, searching doesn't reveal much coverage beyond lyrics and download sites and unofficial reviews etc.. [87] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC aside, I'd say keep it because it's the band's debut ~~album~~ single. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently unreleased single that didn't chart and wasn't on any albums; fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable single, no coverage from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, debut single by notable band. A limited edition release is still a release. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't subvert the requirements detailed in WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but WP:MUSIC doesn't enumerate any notability criteria specifically for singles, so I'm not sure what requirements you're talking about there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:MUSIC#Albums is what I'm referring to. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are loads pf pages on limited singles that are being kept. How is this page any different? Titan50 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Vines. Limited edition single doesn't stand alone as it didn't chart anywhere and didn't appear on any album. B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 8 April 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 --JForget 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homo nudus cum nuda iacebat[edit]

Unsourced future album. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find anything about it on Google. Article can be remade once album is released. ~EdGl 02:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC - Can't be adequately verified, or at the very least, there is no significant second and third party coverage of this future release per [88]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has also been tagged as speedy delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for speedy deletion was given, and it didn't fit any CSD criteria, so I removed the tag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on google and non-notable Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, unverified, unreleased. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well, Neutral Milk Hotel saved my life, too, but I still think we need sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to verify this. Failed. We need sources. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 04:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no sources found in several Google searches, and album is unreleased. Band is notable so this should get coverage when it happens. Recreate when that happens. - Dravecky (talk!) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Music, WP:Crystal, WP:RS – ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delendus est homo nudus. WP:CRYSTAL. Deor (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Band is not notable. -DevinCook (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ummm... i rather think that, by our standards, the band is notable. But this unsourced crystalline future album isn't. tomasz. 15:49, 5 April 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 closure). Nomination withdrawn, sole remaining delete preference rendered obsolete in light of The Heymann Standard. Skomorokh 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Proletariat[edit]

This was already speedied as a copyvio, that's no longer the case. Unfortunately it does not pass WP:BAND. While RS coverage is hard due to a) band's age (although they're active now and should have coverage) and b) the name, there is no evidence of it and the label doesn't appear to be major, note it's not Old Homestead but rather Homestead. Also not encyclopedic and promotional, but that could be fixed if they were notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn thanks to Edgarde;s work, see note below[reply]

Delete, all claims to notability are unverified. Sources cited... change to no opinion for now. ~EdGl 02:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC), edit at 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never understood music criteria, so I'll not express an opinion on keeping or deleting the article, but if it's deleted, it should be recreated as a redirect to proletariat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs)
- This should be linked anyway for disambiguation purposes. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Make redirect~~ per Nyttend. This doesn't seem notable, and that's a redirect that should exist. I'm undecided as to whether a delete/recreate is necessary here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. Now that it's got a couple of sources, I can see the notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per Nyttend. There's no evidence of notability here. As others have noted, this article has been improved, and now seems to pass WP:BAND. Keep. Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per Nyttend Changed to Keep after work on itFattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep band's discography indexed in Steven Blush's American Hardcore: A Tribal History historically notable band. 1st LP (Soma Holiday) was influential, and discussed in Blush's book, the second LP on Homestead Records ought to meet WP:MUSIC. Homestead is no fly-by-nite label (releasing albums by Big Black, Dinosaur Jr, Einstürzende Neubauten, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Sonic Youth etc. "Major label" != Major Corporate label, in the early 1980s influential hardcore punk was just not on labels now recognized as "Major"). Other label releases: MDC's R-Radical records P.E.A.C.E. Comp., track on very influential This Is Boston, Not L.A. comp... That the bands entire catalog was re-released in a 2CD set by Taang! Records demonstrates their historical status, ergo notable. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work a wee bit on the article, but not tonight. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I lied, I worked on it tonight. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sourced (could use more) and notable (I'm listening to them right now, FWIW). Came to this AFD after looking this band up. Promotional tone certainly needs fixing. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've performed some cleanup for tone and formatting, and added a source. Could use some work in the grammar/writing, but my head's not there at the moment. I hope the closing admin will consider the current state of the article. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, thanks to Edgarde's work below. I still think we need a DAB page, which I'm about to create. This will stay here because I think people searching for the working class are unlikely to use 'the' and if they do, the link atop the article will point them home. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Proletariat (disambiguation), it was needed TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:49, 6 April 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 22:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Begoun[edit]

This article had an expired prod on it, with the reason: "Almost an A7 - promotional bio." Maybe it's on the adverty side but I'm not sure it should be deleted, since she is a notable personality, so I'm bringing it here for further opinions. ... discospinster _talk 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If anything that directly promotes any of her books - then it should be deleted. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to pass the notability test. If it's too promotional, it should be cleaned up, not deleted. Terraxos (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should have more sources, but it has enough for WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this nominated? If the you think it should be kept, then remove the prod tag and leave it be. You only bring things here if you think they should be deleted, and the nominator obviously does not. I prodded it, but given the keep opinions it will have to stay for now.--Doc^g 08:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 1 April 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. Singu larity 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle[edit]

Page was made again on here, but used as a different thing. This song was never a single. It is a song that was released, but it hasn't been on an album or isn't a single. Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided (to show that it exists, and is notable). Terraxos (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not asserted. --Yamla (talk) 00:32, 5 April 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. Nominator and all other delete voters changed or withdrew their opinions after the article was improved. (non-admin closure) --erachima formerly tjstrf 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Wrote And Recorded This In Less Than Five Hours[edit]

seems made up and yahoo search doesn't get anything at all. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change my mind. All three sources are good. so week keep. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} —Preceding comment was added at 11:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing vote. Don't feel one way or another, but good job to 10lb.Hammer(man) for improving it ^_^ JuJube (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ ~~db-nocontext and db-vandalism, (it appears to be a hoax) not a very notable album that got a little attention from sources Jons63 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- No vote one way or other, snowball it. Jons63 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what cave you all have been living in, but you may want to acquaint yourselves with "the Google". I jest, Skomorokh 02:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep per sources; seems to be a notable bootleg that got some attention from reliable sources (albeit not very much -- it seems to just scrape through WP:MUSIC). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, really weak keep. As TenPoundHammer says, this only just passes WP:RS, but the bar for inclusion of albums is extremely low, and this meets it. Terraxos (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Really, really weak delete~~. Withdrawing Vote. Seems like the sources are reliable but still, it still sound hoaxy. I mean - all the names of the albums are all the same except for a number added on the end. It just passes WP:RS but it hasnt been even released yet, how do we know if it is going to be. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources demonstrate notability and verifiability. Not a crystal issue as it's apparently sure to be released, and has been demonstrated so by the sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources demonstrate WP:N and WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is incredibly borderline - it just barely meets WP:MUSIC. [89]Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak (almost homeopathic) keep Just about, by the skin of its teeth, mets WP:MUSIC. --Alchemy12 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment. Regarding all this "very weak", "incredibly weak" keep stuff, we have album articles that are still notable despite having fewer than the three reliable sources of this piece. tomasz. 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets album notability, barely, but barely is enough. --erachima formerly tjstrf 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it's 9-2 keep, so I guess that's consensus. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} —Preceding comment was added at 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can convince User:Fattyjwoods of that, you could get a keep by nominator withdrawal and speed up the process. --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:50, 2 April 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.

Zachary Jaydon[edit]

The result was delete and salt. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Toddst1 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Faulks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreated formerly deleted article (which was never tagged as such, but has perhaps been sufficiently rewritten to not qualify as CSD). Contested prod, but still NN. The content of the article and the type of detail before I cleaned it up points to COI by either Faulks or someone he knows (there are quite a few redlink contributors involved in this article, and things that no one person would know unless they were involved directly in all those events). There are no independent sources supporting his notability. Top hits: his Myspace, this article, a forum, a blog, and LinkedIn. That spread is not what I would expect of a sufficiently notable individual. MSJapan (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be non-notable judging by the article and Google. ~EdGl 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable person (not to mention recreation of deleted material). Terraxos (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Reposted deleted material--Alchemy12 (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:14, 1 April 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 --JForget 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Carpenter[edit]

Musician biography that does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), has no reliable sources, and is not written from a NPOV Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has a few claims to notability (why do I keep typing "fwe" instead of "few"?) but nothing that meets WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator (i.e. reasons given in nomination) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, probable conflict-of-interest. ~EdGl 02:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of WP:MUSIC notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - fails WP:MUSIC Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:14, 1 April 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 --JForget 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanooze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nanooze (2nd nomination)

no references to prove vague assertion of notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original contribution ([90]) was by an account conveniently named Nanooze. Little or no improvement since then. —BradV 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Couldn't find any reliable online sources for the site. Also, website has an alexa ranking of almost a million. ~EdGl 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is demonstrated through reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant advertising of an unnotable site Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources, and it seems like blatant advertising. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB and blatant advertising. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. fails WP:WEB is an advertisement created by a single purpose account Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:58, 5 April 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. Singu larity 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of persons who have won Academy, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild, and BAFTA Awards[edit]

This is a replication of several list that already exist.Aiden Fisher (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly narrow criteria for inclusion -- how many people have won Academy, Golden Globe, SAG but not BAFTA? Or Academy, SAG and BAFTA but not Golden Globe? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. —BradV 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - i think its fine, and theres no problem with it being there, its an interesting fact, and other people might like it too. i see no problem Tristan 753 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT#DIR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you're so keen why dont you just view each of the seperate lists? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you have to? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arbitrary synthesis. Why not the César Award or the Edda Award for that matter? --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create them? The only way this is synthesis is that there aren't other versions of it. Creating them solves the problem better than deletion, as we don't lose coalition of information. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable intersection of award winners. See categories. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 10:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems to be an okay list and the criteria for inclusion is clear. People complaining about the list criteria are free to make their own lists. The list fulfills its purpose of information and navigation. I don't think this information could be obtained by using the Category Intersect tool, since that only finds overlaps between two categories, I don't see any SAG categories, and many of the other award categories are very specific. Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial. I don't think this falls under "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" from WP:NOT#DIR because these four awards are fairly significant in the film profession. It's certainly a big achievement to win all four of them. And this kind of information is perfect if Jimbo ever starts selling Wikipedia-brand trivia games. --Pixelface (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a general distate for lists in general. And this one is no exception. The critria for inclusion is compeltely arbitrary. Are they related topics? Absolutely. Should they be chosen randomly and put into a list? Not so much. --Cyrus Andiron 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPound, Dhartung. Arbitrary synthesis. Noroton (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems interesting and good enough to me. The part it fails on is references. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a popularity contest. Articles are not saved simply because they are interesting. --Cyrus Andiron 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of a reliable source ... (pauses to listen to crickets chirping)... stating that winning all four of these awards has some significance (e.g. calling them "the Big Four"), choosing to list the intersection of the four sets of award winners is a quite arbitrary decision, and I think it constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that the people have won awards should be listed on the articles of those people, not within the list itself. If there are people without such references or without articles, they should be removed from it.

Keep. The synthesis argument is invalid, as any bold editor could create articles with the combination of awards (i.e, List of persons who have won Academy and Golden Globe Awards). That is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument. However, the statement that it is the "big four" should be removed unless a citation can be found. Again, though, that's an improvement argument, not a deletion argument. AfD is not cleanup. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my post was unclear. There is no source calling these "the Big Four". That's why this is an arbitrary combination of otherwise unrelated facts. Look at it this way: whose idea was it to list these things together? If a secondary source, then we have an encyclopaedic article. If an author, then we have WP:OR or WP:SYN, depending on whether reliable sources back up the indivudal bits of information. It's true that any bold editor could create a list of any logical combiantion of bits of information. That's no argument for keeping such articles. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:17, 2 April 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. Singu larity 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline[edit]

This article is nothing but a image gallery of various skylines, and only has a paragraph on skylines. There isn't enough here to warrant it's own article. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete perhaps an article could be written on this subject, but this one doesn't work as one and I can't imagine an encyclopedic take on this at this point. JJL (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While certainly not a long article, I don't see the need for deletion. The page is over 4 years old ([91]) and has over 250 backlinks. ([92]) —BradV 01:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longetivity is not a reason to keep the article. It is just a four year old image gallery, and we don't need one on Wikipedia. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is completely useless as encyclopædic material. An article shouldn't just be a gallery. Tavix (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic about a important attribute of a city. Way too many pictures but not a reason to delete. MarsRover (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect Skyline (disambiguation) to Skyline. Article is merely a dicdef with a lot of pictures. A simple mention on the disambig page along with a link to the wiktionary entry (assuming it exists) would suffice. ~EdGl 02:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phenomenon of a city skyline is a well-known and surely well-studied topic. Ridiculously large galleries can be deleted to leave a short stub article, but there's no reason that it's too short to be an article, although of course it could easily be expanded significantly. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is clearly pretty bad and needs massive cleanup, but it's at least theoretically possible that an encyclopaedic article could be written on this subject. Terraxos (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe take a few pictures away? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but take many pictures away. Commons categories now act as image galleries; maybe they didn't four years ago. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it's a mess now, this definitely deserves an article. I agree with Dhartung; toss the gallery (maybe include one photo on the right side) and put a commons link. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept is valid enough, so is the paragraph. The article is therefore better than nothing. Perhaps not the huge image gallery though which could be moved to Commons leaving a link here to point to anyone interested in viewing it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important aspect of many cities. Just because of the overload of pictures, doesn't mean it should be deleted. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fine article with lots of potential and its use of images seems quite appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Valid concept, valid article. Article needs rewrite, clean up and expansion, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Although it isn't currently in good condition and needs a rewrite, that doesn't warrant deletion. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 23:27, 5 April 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 --JForget 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Violence[edit]

Unreferenced, Original research and commentary. The current text sounds entirely like a blog/op-ed piece. The author/creator of the page removed my prod notice, so I'm putting it up for AFD here. --Ragib (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Ragib (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:OR, WP:POV, and (possibly) WP:HOAX. No mention of this in our Kolkata article. —BradV 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. I don't think we need to let the AfD run its course. —BradV 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I have declined the speedy deletion. Neither OR nor POV nor Unreferenced are valid speedy delete criteria. AfD is the correct venue for this. - Philippe 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if what was said above me is true; at any rate article is unsourced. ~EdGl 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without sources, just original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and un referenced Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:OR, [{WP:POV}} etc --Alchemy12 (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible Hoax--NAHID 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, illwritten, and questionable if this is an event notable enough to have an article of its own. --Soman (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt look like an article or the incident as notable , possibly a hoax , ifatall it survives then this is not the way to be left , it looks like a press news than an article .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as personal essay. ~ priyanath talk 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well guys , I authored this article , and I admit is is basewd entirely on Original Research. Well , I live in the city of Kolkata in India , and I have seen first hand what the degraded status of Muslims in that city is. Thank you and PLEASE do not delete the atricle - I'm building on it , tracing the sources etc. I'm new to Wiki.

Shantanu786 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just edited my article as well. I have made some major changes which I'm sure would enable it to qualfy for Wikipedia Standards.

Shantanu786 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your talk page. —BradV 22:57, 2 April 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 redirect three, merge one. There is enough support for merger here (which is a form of keep) to make deletion inappropriate, but strong consensus that these albums do not demonstrate notability sufficient to merit stand-alone status. The albums are all already mentioned at Vitamin Records (with which String Quartet Tribute has recently been merged). The track listings at The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Hypnotize and The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Mezmerize are redundant to the albums being tributed, and without compelling reason this information should not be merged to the parent article as it currently exists for space concerns. (See WP:MUSIC); these articles are accordingly being redirected. The body of The String Quartet Tribute to Dream Theater includes additional information which can be incorporated into the parent article and has been merged as a footnote. The track listings at Arteries Untold: The String Quartet Tribute to Hawthorne Heights and The String Quartet Tribute to Dream Theater are unique arrangements and may be appropriate for inclusion in some form or the other in the parent article; because of space concerns and precedent within the article, they have not been. The article Arteries Untold: The String Quartet Tribute to Hawthorne Heights has simply been redirected. This is easily remedied by referring to the history of the redirected articles if the contributors at Vitamin Records deem the inclusion of track lists appropriate. If unfamiliar with merging, please refer to Help:Merge for proper procedure to follow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Mezmerize[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Mezmerize

This is a non-notable album by a tribune band. The only thing they mention are redlinked names of who created the album and the track listing. The track listing is pointless because you can find that at the Mezmerize article. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Hypnotize

Arteries Untold: The String Quartet Tribute to Hawthorne Heights

The String Quartet Tribute to Dream Theater Tavix (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The String Quartet Tribute per precedent Sceptre ^(talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles about tribute albums are typically pointless by definition, unless the tribute album actually has some independent notability in its own right (which is not the case here). Terraxos (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The DT one does actually have sources. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Sceptre or into the system of a down article Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into The String Quartet Tribute. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article The String Quartet Tribute already makes mention of the system of a down album. Mention could be included in the original album articles for Mezmerize/Hypnotize. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one, Dream Theater's album. It has sources at least. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing "special" about the DT one is that it had a packaging error, according to the article. The other references refers to who picked/played the songs. May I ask how that gives notability? Tavix (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was released by a group who has released hundred of albums, was a tribute of covering 20 years of a band that is notable, contains a unique track listing that could not be found elsewhere like the Mezmerise and Hypnotize tracks can, and had a printing error. By all rules, every single album that the String Quartet Tribute has put out is notable: they have released many cds on a major record label, some of which have won awards. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 18:38, 4 April 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 --JForget 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheFanNJ[edit]

A overly promotional article about a non-notable author that lacks reliable sources to back up some unlikely claims to notability. (For example, it's claimed that "Women vs. Ice cream" was nominated for an "Outstanding Achievement in Poetry" by the National Library of Poetry, yet there are only 4 ghits for the title, none of which come close to being reliable). Bfigura ^(talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, for the reasons listed. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, vanity bio. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 – ukexpat (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment would've, but it had some claim to notability, however unlikely to be true. That and it's been speedied before, so it'd be nice to AfD it, so it can be G4'd if it pops up again. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious vanispam -Drdisque (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "National Library of Poetry" is a vanity poetry contest; nomination for an award by them does not constitute critical acclaim. The rest of the article doesn't appear to assert notability: having had a book rejected by a publisher, having taken a number of writing courses, and having started a small company may have been significant events in Mr. Dyer's life, but they don't rise to the level of significance we're looking for. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable and obvious COI. - Dravecky : Talk
Delete and creation protect per the first AfD notification on the creator's talk page. Very clear COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)
Get rid of it. Blatantly non-notable and obviously a conflict-of-interest. ~EdGl 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Badly written and unsourced article about a non-notable author. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable vanity article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and BS Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Doesn't assert notability in any way, and no sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 1 April 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. Singu larity 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a nn trade school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I still think it falls under a7, but maybe someone will come along and make it decent. Wizardman 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~. There is a nontrivial reference in the media here. I still don't think it qualifies, but there may be more. —BradV 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Keep per improvements to the article establishing secondary coverage. —BradV 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete because article doesn't assert notability (per Wizardman). Keep now that proper references are in place ~EdGl 02:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC), changed vote at 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Note that this is a high school, and that a7 explicitly does not apply to schools. --Eastmain (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written (doesn't qualify for A7, it's a school). Monty Tech is probably notable enough, but I don't think this article can be saved. Nuke for someone to rewrite, or see if it improves within the 5 days. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand. Notable enough just needs some work Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable and plenty of references. See 1,650 results in Google News archive alone, with coverage in Worcester Telegram Gazette, Boston Globe, and elsewhere. Joshdboz (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNotable school that was recently added to wikipedia, needs improvement. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another waste-of-time-and-effort nomination of a school. How does nominating this for deletion help improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), an essay I recently put together. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent for high schools. It's a regional vocational school, in an area where I think the school systems are all town-by-town, so there's nowhere to merge the article to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:40, 5 April 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 srsly keptz. Send your rickrolls this way, I'm going non-admin on this one. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickroll[edit]

Srsly guyz. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, notable phenomenon. —Random832 (contribs) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Random, and it needs a rewrite --₪Ryan Taylor₪^talk 02:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. yep notable, and if YouTube UK acknowledges it even on April Fools Day... ViperSnake151 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this diff. —BradV 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winner 68.40.58.255 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You really can't expect people to be serious on a nom like this... --₪Ryan Taylor₪^talk 02:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can never give this article up, we can never let this article down. We cannot run around and desert it. We cannot make it cry, and we cannot say goodbye. STRONG KEEP ~ Riana ⁂ 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And most of all, we can never tell a lie and hurt it. szyslak (t) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this guy is just sour that he's been rickrolled already and it's barely even April Fool's Day yet. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into "Never Gonna Give You Up" Wikipedian06 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You don't give a reason. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've actually been a bit surprised that it's been a redirect to the song's article for as long as it has. Clearly notable with lots of coverage. Maxa megalon 2000 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in plenty of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a rare example of an internet meme that's actually achieved mainstream notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York Times and Guardian references are good enough for me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cool Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt has actually reached mainstream, even youtube is rickrolling every one as a April fools joke --Phiren (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What the fuck is this shit? Despite the fact that there have been numerous mainstream news articles about this, YouTube has just decided to use this as an April Fool's Joke, rickrolling everyone who clicks on a featured video. Xizer (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to take April Fools' jokes too seriously. —BradV 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This Internet phenomenon has been verified by Le Monde, the Times of London, the New York Times, The Guardian, and even The Economist. szyslak (t) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable phenomenon, to the point that a major website (YouTube) made it the subject of its April Fool's prank (if it's not notable, who's supposed to get the joke?) Ubernostrum (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This nomination must be an April fool's joke considering how well documented this phenomenon is in secondary sources. Clearly passes notability and verifiability guidelines. —siro χ o 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. Nakon 05:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article irrefutably satisfies WP:N at this point in time. --MaTrIx (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. --Have a nice day. Running 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, srsly. This has gone through AfD before. It was notable then, it's notable now. Notability is not temporary. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back into Never Gonna Give You Up. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep Ever Enough said. Grue 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna give it up. Luigi30 (Taλk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. YouTube endorsed it. Also strong support in Urban dictionary. Dandv (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a friend just used the word, I had to look it up. Glad the article wasn't deleted. 48v (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you kidding me? This nomination must be a joke. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion suggestion was an April Fools joke (I hope). --Viper007Bond (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna say goodbye and desert you Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna make you cry Paradoxsociety (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the phenomenon cited in 3 different places in the past few days, came here to look it up, found it. Keep it please :-) Sciamanna (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you. Z00r (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many articles about it, including in the New York Times, and featured in April Fool's pranks by both YouTube and LiveJournal. OldestManOnMySpace (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since this is a serious nomination after all, I'd go with keep. Having been very prominently referenced by YouTube, IsoHunt, LiveJournal, and being central to the Project Chanology movement, I don't see any lack of notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was actually serious, but I, as the closing admin, didn't understand that. It has now been reopened for discussion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was a serious nomination? Wow ... Considering alone yesterday's YouTube April Fools when everyone who clicked on a featured video was Rickrolled, I think this pole-vaults over our notability requirements... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, I don't see "srsly guys" being a good rationale for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already enough reliable secondary sources (New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, Washington Post) in the article defining and analyzing the phenomenon. While the subsection on April Fool's Day, 2008 currently relies on primary sources, that will surely be remedied within a week (such as this Chicago Tribune column that even links to wikipedia's Rickroll article!). Abecedare (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused. I'm sure this has been listed for deletion each day this week. Is someone just moving the nom from day to day? Why is it posted under 2nd April 2008 when it was put up on April 1st. Doesn't that effect the "rules" about timelines and how long items are meant to be up for discussion? By the way my "vote" is Keep no matter how silly I may personally feel the thing is it does seem to have ended up as notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was an April Fool's joke, and closed it appropriately; however, the nominator is serious, so I reopened it and added it to a new day for more consensus. And remember, AFD isn't a vote. ;) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 10:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it isn't a vote that was why I put it in quotation marks. I just can't think of a better word for it. Would you prefer I use the word opinion next time? Not trying to be snarky just want to make sure I get it right from now on. BTW I thought it was a joke article when I first saw it too. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, I was just kidding. People can use that word as long as they remember the fundamental concept of the XFD processes (and usually, we use !vote to show what we mean). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable internet phenomenon. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, plenty of sources(both here and in the article). Also, i don't see any good points for deletion here, even the nominator can't seem to think of one.--Kip Kip 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely common internet phenomenon. Has been featured on the NYT and BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.12.94 (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Brainer: Keep Why do people keep trying to delete this article? It's a source of curiosity for most people aware of its presence which comprises a likely vast majority of media savvy people.. 74.77.241.148 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As weird as it sounds, not everyone on Wikipedia is media-savvy (no offense intended to the nominator) and understands just how widespread and covered this is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I do not see how this article would need to be deleted. The content is notable and verifiable. Also, you did not give out a reason for this nomination. Mythdon (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was rickrolled five times yesterday (dang, almost got to 50 Cent level...maybe next year). It's got the notability and everyone and their mother has cited it. Better this clean-cut thing than other memes involving a goat seeing, or women with a cup (links withheld to save everyone's sanity). Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extreme notability. I'm thinking we might have to Snowball this nomination.--Piemanmoo (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I'm detecting some snow in this sector. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:10, 2 April 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.

^ name="Shekhavat">Shekhavat, Munish (April 6, 2007). "'Belting' his way to glory". The Times of India.

[1] ="Shekhavat">Shekhavat, Munish (April 6, 2007). "'Belting' his way to glory". The Times of India.

[1]