Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

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. Wizardman 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Miccarelli III[edit]

Contested prod. Subject is a candidate for Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Otherwise seems to fail WP:BIO. The closest thing he has is the National Colelge Republican chairmanship which doesn't seem to cut it for me. With notability not inherited from candidacy, hard to see what else can push him over the threshold. Montco (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being a candidate is not enough to confer notability. Gwernol 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. This person has a little more WP:RS coverage than most candidates at the State Rep. level, but the substantial coverage is about his running for office. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~. The National College Republicans are a fairly big deal, but he doesn't seem to have done much of notability while there Ray Yang (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection and further research, change to Keep. If we read WP:BIO1E, we find that it says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." Most of his media sources (including an NPR article I've just added to the list of references) talk about Mr. Miccarelli as a veteran, young leader, talented politician, etc., first, and the particular office for which he's running second. The fact of his candidacy brings him to their attention and adds to his notability, but the person, rather than the event, is garnering the media interest -- after all, how many candidates manage to snag the endorsement of the union to which his opponent belongs? RayAYang (talk) 05:46, 14 July 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.

Gillie Da Kid[edit]

This article has been deleted about a dozen different times, [1] for various reasons (A7, G1, G10, vandalism, et cetera). I feel that this subject still fails WP:MUSIC at present, but perhaps there is evidence to the contrary that I'm not seeing, since it is continually being reposted.

leave it

Delete - Not notable, complete unknown. I don't think there's anything you're not seeing, JBsupreme. Channel ® 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Gillie da Kid is well know within the Black community along with the Dedication Mixtape, which is an article that is also up for deletion. Please allow articles that undoubtly might not be know by the predominately white wiki community, to still have a chance to be feature on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.178.44 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gillie da Kid one of the most notable hip hop acts from North Philli

Keep-He is just hating on Lil' Wayne because no one knows who he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.106.45 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (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.

Rod Janzen[edit]

Non-notable musician. Just barely asserts notability as lead guitarist for Dierks Bentley (and co-writer of one of his singles). Source is a concert review that devotes one sentence to Janzen. No other sources could be found in a search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Artene50 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 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.

Kevin Johns[edit]

Non-notable local radio host, article had been previously deleted, only reference is a link to his website Benjaminx (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N No reliable sources to establish notability. Artene50 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreliable and unnotable. -- role^player 23:30, 15 July 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.

Alex Hall (skateboarder)[edit]

Fails Wikipedia's biographical notability criteria: no information can be found on this subject; after two months, nothing significant has been added. I'm not even certain that this article fails to meet the speedy deletion criteria, but since I've let it sit this long, this seems the more fair process. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For not notable. It could also be deleted speedily per CSD A7 tabor-^{drop me a line} 23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, et cetera. I agree this could have been speedily deleted since notability isn't really being asserted, either. JBsupreme (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article claims the subject is a professional skateboarder, yet then fails to mention any information about a professional career. A search for anything about him turns up no sources, not even unreliable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 15 July 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.

Skinner Incorporated[edit]

Page fails notability guidelines for businesses - coverage in references is trivial, it's about works of art that were sold at Skinner with no other coverage. Subject of references is fundamentally not about the page and can not be used for any purpose except where the work of art was sold. WLU (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

promo ad not notable^MY♥_INchile 06:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article indicates it is the foursth largest auction house in the US, and a Google news search shows a lot of articles that are behind pay walls, however the sources do appear to exist. The promotional tone is an issue for editting and not a reason for deletion as it is not blatant spam. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dispute the nominator's statement that the references in the article are not about the subject. For most articles about people or organisations any sources will be about their work, e.g. sources about a musician will be about his/her performances and recordings, sources about a software company will be about their products, sources about a widget manufacturer will be about their widgets, and in the same way sources about an auction house will be about their sales. As Whpq says their are plenty of Google News hits about Skinner's work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability in terms of its auction sales and records, and the claim is supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is more than confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:14, 17 July 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 close, moot now that it's redirected. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pet rats[edit]

Opinion piece about keeping rats as pets: fails WP:OR and WP:SOAP. The subject is well covered at Rats; two editors have redirected the article there but the author has rejected this. Ros0709 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Although the article is not now up to WP standards pet rats are a notable subject and should have their own article. I bet pet ferrets do. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fancy rat. My bad. Here is the article on pet rats. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Fancy rat. Nothing worthwhile to merge. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the author learned a little more about how WP works he/she could make a valuable contribution. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already redirected to fancy rats per WP:UCS. The content was completely non-neutral, an advocacy piece for rats as pets. There's no reason to have a separate page. The only reason it wasn't a speedy candidate is 'cause the page is useful as a redirect. WLU (talk) 01:04, 13 July 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. Sandstein 19:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elsayed[edit]

This article has been awaiting translation for more than two weeks. Prod contested on the grounds that it is not a valid reason for deletion, which goes against established policy (see WP:PNT and Template:Notenglish). Delete. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Google translation doesn't indicate much notability. Unfortunately, not reading Arabic, I can't do very efficient searches on him; the ones I have done don't show much promise. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A self created bio of a non notable person. Created by a user named Elsayed amr. Upon using the Google Translator link above, this is a bio of a "Doctor of Civil Engineering" (possibly professor? I dunno. Google translator seems to translate as well as Babelfish: Just enough to get the point across). Of course this would have been easier if this article was in English. Seeing as this is the English Language Wikipedia, but even on the Arabic Wikipedia, he wouldn't be notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the professor test. nneonneo ^talk 03:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as failing WP:PROF. If a bio for this person exists on the Arabic wikipedia, then speedy delete per CSD:A2. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the professor test (his own entry on the Vermont University website makes no mention of any publications, awards or recognition by anyone. Using his name in Arabic produced zero hits on Google, so there is no article about him on the Arabic Wikipedia, either (so no speedy delete for A2). --Cbdorsett (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear indication of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources establishing notability (not too surprising, since his PhD is from Fall 2006: not many academics attain notability that rapidly after their PhD). --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be honest I'm not sure why there isn't an option to speedy delete something like this. This is the English language Wikipedia after all. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. That's because there is already an established procedure to deal with stuff like this. This AfD, as a matter of fact, is the final step of that procedure, to be done only when all else fails. See WP:PNT, where, on an average day, two or three pages get listed, and some of them grow into valid articles. I'd be curious to know whether there are articles that currently have Featured status that were once listed at PNT. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Maybe not featured status, but I have certainly seen a lot of good Start and B class articles arise from WP:PNT-listed articles. Even if it is the English WP, people sometimes post very good material in a foreign language. nneonneo ^talk 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A2. Nsk92 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 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, does not meet WP:MUSIC, no indication of notability. Chillum 13:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, specifically "mixtapes ... are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". This article is poorly sourced and does not demonstrate any significant independent coverage as required. Ros0709 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:40, 13 July 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 evidence of notability. No inherent notability for names. No objection to re-creation when/if sources are found.. TravellingCari 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baali (surname)[edit]

Utter nonsense, OR Doug Weller (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One redlink in the article should have its own article, but this one is plain OR. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep subject to sources being added. In principle there is no problem with an article about a surname. However, the article is currently unsourced and if it remains that way by the time this AfD ends then I would endorse delete as WP:OR. Ros0709 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is unlikely to be a source for "ruled Megiddo 7000 BC to 1500 BC". Doug Weller (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells downright hoax-like, although I'm sure the surname exists. Maybe the article can be fixed, if real notable people by that name should materialize. Ray Yang (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googled "baali megiddo -wikipedia". It made me select "only English language" after my first try and gave no apparently related results at my second try. I did get one result showing some connection with Abdulah Baali (that man is probably notable), but nothing at all about Baali surname. Also, the article has no links from mainspace whatsoever. The formatting is also questionable. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Googled "baali megiddo"

http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/E/EASTON/EBD/EBD/T0000300.HTM

"Baalis - king of the Ammonites at the time of the Babylonian captivity (Jer. 40:14). He hired Ishmael to slay Gedaliah who had been appointed governor over the cities of Judah."

The Baali family is mentioned in the bible dating it back 2000 years. Even if the Bible is somewhat questionable.

talk) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic, I guess The Addams Family is mentioned in the Book of Genesis Mandsford (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This does not say anything about Baali family, just about a king named Baalis. We do already have an article on him. Also, there is no apparent connection between him and the Algerian ambassador (redlink). Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:30, 12 July 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 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami: The Death God[edit]

Article is short and unreferenced. The only website I can find referencing this album is a fan's post on MySpace. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per above. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Without a confirmed release date this album fails notability criteria. Ros0709 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, WP:CRYSTAL and possibly WP:NOR. The article fails the criterias. --Kanonkas : Talk 16:15, 13 July 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. Sandstein 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protest against western media's coverage of China[edit]

To the extent it's merited, this stuff already gets some coverage in 2008 Tibetan unrest and is well-referenced in Jack Cafferty. This article is poorly referenced and rather polemical in nature. Indeed, the title too is terribly vague: it should be something like Protests against 9 April 2008 Jack Cafferty remark regarding the 2008 Tibetan unrest, which further underscores the subject's trivial nature. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is a duplicate of information in 2008 Tibetan unrest. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable to be a separate article. Just keep it in 2008 Tibetan unrest since it involves a reaction on the crackdown in Tibet, and a counterreaction to that reaction. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:30, 16 July 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.

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variant texts in Scientology doctrine}}

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chord building grid[edit]

I don't think this actually exists. The only references I found online were either mirrors or in reference to this article. The original author says on the talk that the only reference he'd ever seen for it was on a guitar forum page in another language. Contested prod. — Music Maker 5376 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I must admit it does work as described, but there are no outside references to this concept, so it constitutes original research. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it kind of works. For example, it says that the notes in a G-minor chord are G, D, and A#. It will build a chord, but as a pedagogical tool, it's rather lacking. — Music Maker 5376 20:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, but original research, not backed up by any sources whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the images are public domain, could they still end up deleted as abandoned? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, but not through a speedy deletion process. See: WP:IFD. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:37, 12 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Consumer Products[edit]

No citations to reliable sources to verify claims, to establish notability, or to offer real-world perspective (i.e. development and critical reception). --EEMIV (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major institutions in major fiction will be sufficiently discussed to merit individual articles--or possibly combination articles with other similar ones. Wherever we put it, this is appropriate content for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Fictional major corporation that plays a crucial and predominant role in a major movie franchise, RoboCop. Needs cleanup. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for our own safety, they might send ED-209 after us. Seriously though, OCP was a major component in all the movies, video games, etc, but the article could certainly use some sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the aforementioned keep arguments. Adding some citations and tagged for rescue. --Pmedema (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Omni Consumer Products is involved in the Robocop to the level we may call it not only a character, but the main antagonist. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not establish notability of the topic in the real world. --Phirazo 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is a delete vote and the nom has not withdrawn, normal conditions of WP:SNOW or WP:SPEEDYKEEP have not been met. I see no reason not to let the debate run it's course for the normal 5 days. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major character in a major film series, with sources available to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:23, 15 July 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'tan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is pure repetition of plot and trivia from the Warhammer 40,000 series articles. It should therefore be deleted. It was also previously nominated for deletion in 2005 and was kept due to many votes which ignored notability and verifiability rules. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I hate articles about fictional, fantasy persons. However this one does list some references, although they are not yet properly footnoted. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but the references listed are primary sources, so they do not establish the notability that I am asking about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear consensus in previous discussion, Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above, I clarified it for you. Also, random internet searches mean nothing, and the five pillars in this case support me not you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to notify those who participated in the earlier discussion (from all sides of it) to see if anyone's opinions changed in either direction? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to think that the C'tan have importance in the world I live in. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom is quite correct in that in the previous AfD, most of the keep arguments were weak at best. A good example is "Keep, article provides important information, why delete it?" Why, because the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. I have never before heard the idea that a second AfD lacks validity if we can't get everyone from the first one back. It has long been accepted that concensus can change Beeblbrox (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That which we can hold in the real world is real world notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Are you saying that anytime an action figure is made, it is automatically notable? Beeblbrox (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that appears both in text and in toy format is at least notable enough to be added to a list of such characters that the smaller articles can be merged and redirected to. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a miniature was made doesn't mean it's notable. Simply referencing a catalog or price list does nothing to support notability. (After all, that's how Games Workshop makes money, by selling these miniatures.) By your reasoning, since I can hold my TV remote control in my hand, it's notable (after all, my remote control appears in text format in my TV owner's manual too, i.e how to operate it). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, my friend. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you personally don't agree with WP:N doesn't mean it does not apply here, LeGrand Roi... Unless you'd also like to toss WP:RS out the window as well. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a big effort underway to reform it as the policy as is clearly lacks consensus (see the talk page, and as also evidenced by alternate proposals and a whole category of editors). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. There are no independent references (i.e. not associated with Games Workshop or its affiliates or "official material") to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all primary sources - no 3rd party coverage that is beyond the trivial, I've been working extensively in this area and the material simply doesn't exist. This is cruft for all of those reasons and should be deleted as such. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. If you are willing to change your username from User:Killerofcruft, please also consider disusing that unconstructive word, as well. Thank you. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the third time you've linked me to that essay - do you think I missed it the first two? the answer is still the same - NO. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to wander too far off topic, but does anyone else see the irony in trying to make someone follow the advice of an essay while at the same time openly disregarding an established editing guideline? Beeblbrox (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to throw "cruft" under the euphemism treadmill will only result in another word that means the same thing. --Phirazo 03:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that show notability in the real world. --Phirazo 21:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most important content can be moved into the Necrons article (whose notability is also debatable), or summarised in a "List of major characters in Warhammer 40000" or something similar. Lots of details that have little relevance to the vast majority of people and stink of original research, synthesis and a complete lack of secondary sources. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire content of the article is hopelessly and irredeemably in-universe and sourced solely to primary sources (which is unsurprising given Games Workshop's IP policy). Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. The C'Tan are largely a piece of background material in the Tau storyline and as such real-world notability is basically nonexistent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, no evidence of real world notability has been shown. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Warhammer has an extensive backstory that is of interest to anybody attempting to research the game. If this article is not notable enough to be keep on here the latest version of it should be moved to the Warhammer 40,000 wiki and linked to from the main Warhammer article before it is deleted Switchbreak (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the other Warhammer AfD's, WP:GNG provides a clear guide as to which pages are to be maintained. If the subject is covered in significant detail in independent sources, it is presumed to be notable (note for the curious, the codexes, works of fiction and White Dwarf magazine are all published by games workshop). This AfD is not the forum for debate on WP:N. Extraneous and novel methods of determining "notability" that bear no resemblance to the consensus view don't seem very persuasive to me. The fact that the article fails to abide by WP:WAF is tangential but indicative of the larger problem of meshing this subject with a real world encyclopedia without some secondary sourcing to anchor it. Protonk (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as hopelessly unnotable, in-universe cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not assert notability via reliable secondary sources, and is merely repetition of plot and trivia from the Warhammer universe. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abandoned bit of crap left by fled WH40K editors. Unreferenced, unreferenceable, useless for merging. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 17 July 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 StankDawg#Binary_Revolution_Radio. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Revolution Radio[edit]

fails to establish the notability of this radio program, lacks 3rd party references Rtphokie (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a non-notable web-cast. No mention in secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's already covered in StankDawg. bbx (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to StankDawg which already provides ample coverage about this related show. JBsupreme (talk) 03:55, 15 July 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 Unification Church. Sandstein 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successor of Sun Myung Moon[edit]

This page seems to violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball since it is speculation about future events. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I have suggested making a section on the future of the Unification Church in Unification Church. (I am a member BTW.) This article could be moved there. Crystal ballism could be avoided by only using published opinions. An article only on future events probably is not in the spirit of WP policy. Another point is that Rev. Moon is unique as the founder of the UC and will not be succeeded in that office. The real topic is more like: "Future leadership of the Unification Church." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is appropriate. This is idle speculation that won't matter much when Moon dies. WillOakland (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would reply but WP policy forbids me from making predictions. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Steve Dufour. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is not a matter of speculation. Moon will have a successor, and he will die eventually. It would only be speculation, if we were guessing the date of his death. When the merge is complete, please leave a REDIRECT behind. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:34, 15 July 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. Nom withdrawn.--PeaceNT (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor East, Baltimore[edit]

It's a development project, hardly fulfilles WP guidelines on notability. I quote the guidelines "A sub-section of a human settlement, such as a district of a town, should normally be incorporated in the article about the settlement it is located in, unless it has exceptional notability of its own, or unless it constitutes a unit of local government.", which this does not. Ironho lds 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It really seems to be a shopping center, not unlike thousands accross the country. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it your logic that shopping malls should not have articles? I see no reason to delete this based on that. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Downtown Baltimore. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The master plan for this development won a National Honor Award from the AIA.[2] It was cited, but the article was missing a <references/> tag (now fixed). I'm still checking this one out. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies RS & V and has acquired the National Honor Award for Urban Design from the American Institute of Architects to satisfy N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case i'll change to Keep and ask someone friendly to close this (I don't know the specifics of how to, i'm afraid). Apologies for the bad nom. Ironholds 06:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Best to let the AFD run its course (as a K & D are already in) ... but your !vote is appreciated. :) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Exit2DOS2000, the National Honor Award for Urban Design from the American Institute of Architects does it for me. RFerreira (talk) 19:59, 16 July 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 Jean-Pierre Hallet#Pygmy Kitabu. As the only editor arguing for keep has merged the content, redirect seems to be the consensus here. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy Kitabu[edit]

Unnotable book that fails all options of WP:BK. This book has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" (1) and it has not won any "major literary awards" (2). It also has not "been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country." Editors to the article claim the documentary Pygmies is based on the book, though the creator of the film, Hallet, does not actually say that. He says he wrote the book on the Efé Pygmies, then also wanted to make a documentary on them to provide a "visual depiction" shortly before the government planned to ban any photographing of them.[3] Either way, it is not a major film, having only been shown in one or two theaters in San Francisco of unknown commerical status. So it fails option 3. The book also has not he been "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" (4).

Finally, Jean-Pierre Hallet is not "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Some editors on the article claim he is, however as I noted to them "So historically significant' would apply to people like Mother Theresa, the Pope, Shakespeare, Abe Lincoln, etc. who have are written about in history books Not a single humanitarian in a relatively obscure field who is not himself the subject of multiple books and with significant coverage in reliable sources." The reply was to accuse me of being prejudiced against the Pygmies, rather than provide any evidence this humanitarian is notable. A Google search does not support these claims at all, so the book fails criteria 5. Is Hallet notable? Certainly. Is he is "so historically significant" that all of his books are also notable? No. As such, this article should be deleted.

Additionally, it should be noted that there is an open suspected sockpuppetry case against the three major contributors to this article at -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant to the content of the article regarding the Pygmy Kitabu book. Nutsheller (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppetry case is relevant to the AfD, in case of a bunch of SPA's coming to say keep and keep. The book may not be trivial, but it is still not notable. The author's notability does not confer to his book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to author. The book and film seem to be non-notable. All the information is in the author's article, Jean-Pierre Hallet. Although that needs more sourcing as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book differs in being a scholarly treatise referenced by another review textbook and used in University-level syllabi (cf. below). As such, it has a greater level of relevance than a footnote to the author's biography. Nutsheller (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this useful search term. Either keep or merge with the author's article. Pburka (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is a scholarly ethologic/sociologic treatise on one of the oldest civilizations. It is referenced in a modern textbook on the history of language and in other sources, such as Websters Online dictionary and previously on Wikipedia itself in another context. It was reviewed in American Anthropologist. It is not a trivial book. It has been translated into 21 languages, including Chinese and Russian. The book and the film are the subject of a university-level course at San Jose State University and a sociology course at the university of Hawaii, which automatically fulfills the Wikipedia criteria for notability ("the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country"). Jean-Pierre Hallet has been recognized with Zaire's highest national award, is internationally recognized as a humanitarian (by the California Academy of Sciences among others), and was active throughout his life in eastern Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. He has raised millions of dollars for the Pygmies and succeeded in securing a national sanctuary for them within the Congo. He has actually been described as the Abe Lincoln of the Congo by an independent source. Wikipedia is quicker to allow articles about meerkats (or anime characters) than about such humanitarians and their books.Nutsheller (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was shown in Los Angeles and San Francisco (you claim above that it was shown only in San Francisco). A small run, yes. But don't create false facts. That is unethical. Furthermore, you are asserting a negative as fact. The book Pygmy Kitabu and the movie Pygmies were released in the same year, on the same topic, by the same author, with the same intent. It is unreasonable to contend that the movie was not largely based on the book, even if it is not credited explicitly (which neither you nor I can ascertain or disprove, since the credits of the movie are not before us.)Nutsheller (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create false facts. It was shown one time in LA, per the article, which anyone else can read for themselves. It is unreasonable to "content" the movie was based on the book when the author and creator himself didn't say so. The burden is not on other editor do "disprove", but on you to provide reliable sources backing up your claim that is NOT supported by the very source you claim does. And stop sticking your remarks in the middle of other people's comments. Its rude and makes it very difficult to follow a conversation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems appropriate at this point. Even super-notable and important authors that are household names don't necessarily merit an article about everything they have written. I haven't seen anyone suggest that Jean-Pierre Hallet himself doesn't merit an article. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. But Wikipedia criteria does allow for that, espeically concerning the most notable book or two of that historically significant figure, especially if its largely the basis for a scientific documentary. Further, the notability guidelines are based on common sense and reasonability. Failure to satisfy a criteria is expressly not a reason for speedy deletion. However, this book already meets multiple criteria: notable figure, basis for movie, subject of university level courses, and referenced in other independent scholarly works. All these are documented in the Talk section for the article. Collectonion is being over-zealous and hair-splitting in trying to get it deleted. That is known as Wikipedia:WikiLawyering and detracts from reasonably evaluating the content of an article.Nutsheller (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to your concerns and might even change my opinion at some point soon. To you I'd recommend improving the hell out of the article and its sources (an endeavor with which I may even help you) and stepping away somewhat from the AfD debate. Accusation and bickering are rarely successful tactics on Wikipedia. And please sign your comments. It shouldn't really effect the credibility of your arguments to other editors but I think it does if only on a subconscious level. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also stay focused. A comment such as (for example) "He has raised millions of dollars for the Pygmies" would be relevant to the Jean-Pierre Hallet article but doesn't speak directly to the notability of a specific book. I hope these comments are helpful. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an individual that raises millions of dollars to secure a national preserve and receives a national medal for his efforts is historically significant, and that is expressly one of the criteria for notability of a book authored by that individual. -Nutsheller (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing with the person who offered to help you is a pretty foolish tactic. I almost certainly could have saved this article. It's something I do. As is, I am betting it will get deleted. Ciao. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay focused. You also have made this personal and involved your ego. This isn't about you or me. It is about the article and an extremely important book.Nutsheller (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The asserted SJSU course page does not mention the author or the book. The asserted Hawaii course includes it only as one on a long list of readings. The other references discuss either the general subject, or the author, not the book. a single short review in AA is not sufficient for notabiity. The awards is for the author, not the book. He's a notable person, but t he';s a very large gulf between that and "historically significant". I see no way the article could be written to make it acceptable, as the book is simply not notable enough independently. DGG (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"September 10 -- 'Pristine' Religions, Animism and Ritual -- [Description of lecture]... The films of Jean-Pierre Hallet." Pygmy Kitabu is listed in the right column.Nutsheller (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today the featured article on Wikipedia is Palpatine, a fictional character in a Star Wars movie or something like that. Your perception of historically significant may be in line with some other users of Wikipedia, I suppose... Nutsheller (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged -- fine. The article on the book was merged into that of the author, as well as his other works (other books, films, music ethnologies).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutsheller (talk • contribs) 09:31, July 13, 2008

As a note, Nutsheller has merged the content into the author's article and redirected the Pygmy Kitabu. I've undone the redirect, however, until the AfD closes to avoid confusion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 14 July 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) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ablett[edit]

Contested prod. No independent reliable sources to support notability claims, apparent self-promotion. Delete MikeWazowski (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party sources. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, another instance where an explanation for the PROD removal would have been nice. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's self-promotion. Ray Yang (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 04:49, 13 July 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 A7 (web) by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windward Pass[edit]

Unreferenced and tagged for notability since this April. A Google search reveals no mention in third-party sources per WP:WEB. I don't think it's quite a speedy since it claims "significant increase in online internet presence", but it certainly doesn't back that up. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No real assertion of notability, the fact that their traffic went up so they had to give up dial up does not cut it. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 17:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you may be right. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 (Web). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:01, 12 July 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 Speeedy Keep per WP:SNOW, the other issues brought up here can be discussed at the article's talk page. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (non-admin closure) [reply]

Rum Swizzle[edit]

Contested PROD to allow editors to discuss whether or not to keep this page since it was submitted by a new editor. –BuickCentury Driver 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is notable in Bermuda and in the tourism market. A google search comes up with lots of hits and slight differences in the recipe. I think I'm going to make one of these tonight to try it out. --Pmedema (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably notable but the article's references don't establish that. What you should try to find are references in newspapers, magazines, etc. that refer to it as "the de facto national drink" or "an ubiquitous feature of tourist spots" or whatever. Remember the onus of establishing notability falls upon the creator of articles as well as anyone who volunteers to champion them. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After posting the comment above, I easily found four references to it being the national drink. All but one, the inn where the drink was originally created, are neutral sources. I will, however, add that Livitu's AfD prompt was appropriate and I would have done the same thing. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it may be questionable that the drink was invented in Bermuda in 1932. I found this reference to rum swizzles in a book published in 1930[4]. Pburka (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. While undermining the Swizzle Inn's claim of having invented it, that mention in Hergesheimer book does advance the arguement for Wiki-worthy notability. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the recent improvements, nice work. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Local news paper as source [5] Look I live in Bermuda I know what our national drink is! (The internet is not a good source for anything) the web is inaccurate. Want proof go www.bermudayp.com pick a number any number and ask someone! This article was written by a Bermudian about Bermudian culture. Is that not what Wikipedia is about? Sharing knowable only people there can give you! Some of you are fixing it and then some of you are butchering our culture! Like you or the internet would know! When this gets included which it will be. I am changing it back to being accurate because it is not anymore! I do understand you are just trying to prove it I just don't think it should be on the front page! I am just trying to make sure the article is accurate to our culture!—Preceding ( Braslinut (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC) ) comment added by Braslinut (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:No original research. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could benefit from a review of Wikipedia:Civility as well. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is driving me to drink, where's that recipe again...Beeblbrox (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no kidding! I have about a half-cup of cachaça sitting at the bottom of a bottle atop my 'fridge. I bet it would work just fine. - House of Scandal (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too Beeblbrox ;) read my main page ;) And I've got a hurricane coming at me. I have now added notable local news paper source http://www.bermudasun.bm/main.asp?SectionID=40&TM=45432.66 proving it is the official drink. Look this is obviously my first article I know where to look of stuff (Sources) It just seems to be getting out of hand a little bear in mind that this page is about our culture and will show up as the first search result for it. Because I started it I know fell responsible for it accuracy and Bermudians would be very upset if it were wrong!!!!!
Maybe the US is going to invade us and tell us what our culture is. We don’t have any oil I swear! Just say’in. Braslinut (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you do have coconuts, and that is where coconut oil comes from... --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braslinut, welcome to Wikipedia! The discussion taking place here is very ordinary, so don't be frazzled by it. So far, the opinion to "keep" is unanimous -- that's nothing to complain about. With the improvements we've made to the article, I am confident not only will this article not get deleted, it may be featured on the "Did you know...?" section of the front page about 5 days from how as I have nominated it. That's pretty cool for a first article. If you need any help adjusting to the culture here or interpreting the policies, don't hesitate to contact me or any other experienced editor who isn't a total douchebag. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor but still important point: "National drink of Bermuda" is verifiable, "official national drink of Bermuda" is, to my knowledge, not verifiable. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the recent cleanup, it easily meets the four standards of note. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources Bermuda's National drink:[6]

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Or just do this [15] --Braslinut (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your issue? Everything is going your way and everyone here has been delightful to you. Are you trying to prove it's the official drink? If so, please show that the government has approved it as so. - House of Scandal. Do this:[16] and you get zero hits. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&q=%22official+national+drink%22+and+%22caipirinha%22. What only two links from a country of 186,757,608 for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caipirinha. Thats an invalid arguement! Also no govermnet page and that is a pretty big article!!!!

http://www.google.com/search?q=rum+swizzle&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 now tell me how far you can get with out Bermuda being in the story.

You don't need a web source to know the sky is blue just go outside and look up! Braslinut (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 01:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what point Braslinut is trying to make. Apparently there's no pleasing some people. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advise Braslinut to back away from the dead horse. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~with the exception of the Recipe section, which is wholly inappropriate as per WP:NOTGUIDE~~. Jim Miller (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I dissagree... As far as I can see the drinks here on Wikipedia are acompanied with their Recipe... maybe not in a section... Maybe in the cleanup of the article it can be modifed to conform with the usual format of other drinks using the box to have the recipe in.--Pmedema (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there's even an infobox to include the recipe. An example can be found accompanying the Lime Rickey article. - House of Scandal (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there is! I took a look at the WikiProject, and moved the recipe to the infobox according to their standards for reliable sources. Live and learn! Jim Miller (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Live and learn!" is the most useful comment I have heard from anyone all day! Wise words. - House of Scandal (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep And what is the reason to delete? --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 12:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Yup, it's a good article on a subject now shown to be noteworthy. Meldsha, go back in the history and you'll see that when the page was created it was not encyclopedic. Now it is, so good job editors. I think this could probably be SNOWed. Livitup (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevanna Jackson[edit]

WP:BIO Brianga (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment From the guide to deletion: "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." I would add that even an experienced editor needs a little more information than you have given about how exactly the article fails. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Very fair. This article is being nominated for deletion because the article does not prove that Stavanna Jackson has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Brianga (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for clarifying, and you are quite correct, those are all primary sources Delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No news coverage, only appears in two episodes of Zoey 101. Notability is not inherited from her father. (I agree with the first responder, though). Pburka (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 16 July 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. Sandstein 19:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theriaca (beverage)[edit]

Drink concoction of no apparent significance other than it was made by AFDed New-Agey guy Tony Samara (see AFD below). Not far from an advertisement, I really don't see how this warrants a Wikipedia entry. (Though apparently it "will cure and heal everything", according to an earlier version of this article, so perhaps that's a claim of notability of sorts.) No reliable sources provided. R. fiend (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely not notable. No reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, non-verifiable, and an advert to boot. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day. At school or otherwise. JBsupreme (talk) 03:56, 15 July 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.

Tony Samara
The result of this discussion was delete. 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. Sandstein 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana O'Brien[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Diana O'Brien

Does not seem to have been notable as a model, or for any other reason, prior to her death. Her murder also does not seem to be exceptional so, although there has been extensive press coverage, I believe that the article falls foul of WP:BIO1E. TigerShark (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I am, however, somewhat of an inclusionist and open to be being convinced otherwise. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment/Weak Keep~~. The death is recent, and news coverage is ongoing, so it may have other repercussions. I think we can wait a bit. If nothing else comes of it, this may be a classic example of WP:ONEEVENT. Ray Yang (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is a valid reason to keep the article. We don't have articles for people or events that may become notable, and we don't keep existing ones in case they do become notable. If the person or a related event becomes notable in future an article can easily be created/re-created then. TigerShark (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The guideline is to "cover the event, not the person." In this case, I don't believe we have an article on the event, which is certainly of some note. Should we move the article instead? RayAYang (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that was done, what do you think makes the event itself notable? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Good point. As time passes, I really do begin to think this was a 5 days wonder. Changed my mind to Delete. I'm thickheaded, but data gets through eventually, I hope. RayAYang (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. When I started the page, I was hesitant for the reasons more or less expressed above. I was a little taken aback by the reporting style in the local press which made me decide to give it a go. That's not how the press here in Turkey reacts when a "guest" of this order is subjected to an attack (the solution then is generally a question of timing, as here. The more so if the attack is of a lethal and/or sexual nature (the latter is not the case here apparently, I am distancing myself from my point...). As per Ray Yang I should say let's keep it for the moment. A suspect is arrested and then he confessed. She was preparing to leave for Yunnan and then the murder, with theft as motive, occurred. Still, the page is among the top hits when you google "Diana O'Brien". I would say, let's wait awhile. Cretanforever (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Are you saying that she is notable, or are you saying let's wait to see if she becomes notable. If it is the latter, then that is not a valid reason to keep. We need to discuss how this article complies with the notability requirement. TigerShark (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an individual, the subject is not notable, and as a news item, it's currently a news item with no indication of lasting impact or coverage -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 15 July 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Zee[edit]

previously prodded, removed as had 'performed top 10 hit' but only a backing singer, so should fail WP:BIO, no sources or references to check facts anyway Tassedethe (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Being a backup singer isn't sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 15 July 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 judicious merge to Emergency medical services. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of emergency medical assistance[edit]

Delete Article does not meet Wikis WP:N or WP:V as this article has no cites/references, there is no way for one to added ref/cites due to this whole article being of personal opinion Medicellis (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note also can be merged into Emergency medical services in a small cat. but needs alot of help even for that Medicellis (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps some part of it can be merged. However, most of it seems to be unreferenced OR combined with links to other existing articles, with some uneven statements about history and the practices of a few foreign countries. Further, the material is only loosely linked to the title "Organization of emergency medical assistance" —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is useful: things like scoop and run vs stay and play are definitely notable and verifiable, but they belong in the EMS article. How much work would be involved is irrelevant in an AfD debate. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would disagree that "scoop and run" and "stay and play" are WP:V or even WP:N. The only place I have ever heard these mentioned are as "teaching tools" from EMS educators. And loose ref. are made in course such ITLS (Internatonal Trauma Life Support)[17] and PreHospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS)[18]. But YOU WOULD be hard pressed (if not pretty impossible) to get verifiable sources were this is included in EMT curriculum. I'm may say to my partner hey this is a "load and go" or "we are gonna treat this with diesel" But this is no way a widely used figure of speech or even notable. Medicellis (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is a notable controversy for which references exist. I have several medical textbooks mentioning it, and you'll find it in many scientific articles as well (see Google Scholar). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, I had not seen many of those articles, and makes for interesting reading. But as it stands, this page would be much better merged into the already well written Emergency medical service. Medicellis (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep information. The information under "Organization in different countries" is clearly both notable and verifiable (although unsourced at the moment). Whether it's kept in its present form or merged or turned into a list, or split into many individual articles for each country is of no importance to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not much of the information in this article needs to be merged, mabe the "scoop and run" and "stay and play" aspects. But most of the information is present in other articles, Paramedics in Germany, Paramedics in Canada, and as you can see the page Paramedic has a section on different countries. As you can see this page is very redundent in 90% of it's information, as well as being present else were in wiki. Medicellis (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In present form not suitable for inclusion. Much content is already present elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to Category:Emergency medical services by country. Although Articles and Cats can co-exist, this particular one does not implement it well. Furthermore; I do not feel that continued editing of this document will result in an acceptable version, unfortunately. Either Delete (without prejudice) or a complete re-write is required. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable content to the EMS article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate. Phasmatisnox (talk) 21:18, 19 July 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 Hoary notes, suspect content should not be merged. Sandstein 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perversion of religion[edit]

Orphaned article, previously prodded but contested by the author, which does little more than attempt to define a phrase (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Moreover, the article claims that the term was coined by Kant in Critique of Judgement, but the phrase doesn't appear in Critique of Judgement, at least not in this translation, and Google doesn't think it is associated with Kant. As a title for an article this would be inherently POV unless there's a well-defined philosophical concept with this name, which seems unlikely, so the potential for a good article here is rather low. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless author can support this with solid references; and even then, I'd say it belongs at best somewhere in an article on Kant or Kantian theory. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for a separate article on this one, certainly not given one without references supporting the claims offered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge as a section on Kant's views of religion in the main article on him, or the article on Critique of Judgment --with better sourcing to show the concept is generally accepted. I don't know enough to myself say how important this particular part of his thought is considered to be. DGG (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable expression. Borock (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Critique of Judgement, but delete the redirect. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is sourced to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. I don't have access to this online and I also don't have a copy of the book. I do however have a copy of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. This doesn't appear to mention the phrase, but it does go on at considerable length about the Critique of Judgement, which it points out is complex, subtle and perplexing. While I normally like to "AGF" and all the rest, I have little faith in summaries of material such as this by any but the most capable and scrupulous of editors. The particular editor who created this article has a short list of contributions conspicuous among which is the usurpation of an article on the physicist Ashesh Prosad Mitra to re-create an article on the apparently unrelated psychiatrist Ashok(a) (Jahnavi-) Prasad (most recently discussed here). Of itself this does not imply that this article is worthless, but it does imply to me that the article is more safely assumed to be worthless and should not be merged anywhere (or "transwikied" or otherwise recycled) unless its content can first be verified. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted by Gwen Gale (non-admin closure) per CSD A7 as web content that failed to indicate its importance or significance. WilliamH (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clubpenguin HQ[edit]

This page about a Club Penguin fan site so called "Club Penguin HQ" fails WP:N, is poorly written, and there are traces of original research. No refs after a Google search, so it's a no go for expansion. --Vinni3 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Vinni3 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 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 a copyvio. no non-infringing version in history to revert to. Reso lute 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharam[edit]

Non notable, possible original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources available [19]. Rather than tag for deletion, roll your sleeves and do some research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The onus on providing references belongs to the article's creator and to anyone who wants to take on the task. It does not fall upon other editors and the advise to "roll your sleeves and do some research" is highly inappropriate in this context. Not only has the creator of this article failed to provide references, the article is thoroughly unwikified -- a combination which I feel indicates at best disinterest and/or disrespect for the culture of Wikipedia and the efforts of other editors. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged this article for speedy deletion as a blatant db-copyvio of this site. S. Dean Jameson 18:42, 12 July 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference point[edit]

This is a dictionary definition, and has apparently been transwikied over to wikitionary already. This was PROD'ed but contested. Note that the PROD was placed on an earlier version of the article with very little text. The editor contesting the PROD restored material deleted in an earlier edit, but despite the additional text, it still remains a dictionary definition. Whpq (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. It is indeed already over at Wiktionary. Isn't Speedy deletion criteria A5 for this specific case? Ray Yang (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please: I'ts "criterion A5", not "criteria A5". The latter is plural. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For A5 to apply an AFD discussion has to have already resolved to transwiki the article, unless it is a bare dictionary definition. This has a few lines of expansion to it and is not eligible for speedy deletion. Keep as good, encyclopedic article with potential. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Anything which begins "a reference point is a tool" is not long on potential, and this appears to be in the addition Stifle mentions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 15 July 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2Pac Lives The Death of Makaveli / The Resurrection of Tupac Amaru (Volume 1)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2Pac Lives The Death of Makaveli / The Resurrection of Tupac Amaru (Volume 1)

No WP:notability for Wikipedia, probably self published, WP:SOAP. Brando130 (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Brando130 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, obvious WP:SOAP Medicellis (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. JBsupreme (talk) 03:56, 15 July 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. Only Pburka has made an argument for keep, and that is contingent on reliable sources which haven't been found.Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parampoojya Shri Kalavati Aai[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be provided. Appears to be a Hindu saint. Pburka (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By my statment that there are no reliable sources - specifically I mean that after a search I have found no reliable sources that establish notability. I am aware that no such sources exist in the article. Also, I believe that there are none to be found and that these claims to be a "Hindu saint" must be verified - this claim too has no reliable sources. Such statements must be sourced. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of info here. I wouldn't consider that a reliable source, but it doesn't look made up, either. If that info can be supported by a more reliable source (perhaps in Hindi), she would probably be considered notable. Pburka (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Never heard of her, staying in Maharashtra. Almost no google hits except wiki.[20]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete by what criteria? Pburka (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is original research, as there is no source, but this article, that says Parampoojya Shri Kalavati Aai is a Hindu saint. As such, this article should be deleted per Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, this article is orphaned. As is, the article should be deleted per Wikipedia:No original research. Ism schism (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the source I provided above. It's not original research. (But the link I found isn't a reliable source, either). Also note that Ism schism is the nominator and has now placed three delete votes. Pburka (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharudh Swami[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources and possible original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability.Kww (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The onus on providing references belongs to the article's creator and to any one who wants to take on the task. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:20, 12 July 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. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Pranavananda[edit]

Non notable, one event and no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not referenced by secondary sources. Borock (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources available: [21]. Please make some effort to research these sources and improve the article. We are here to create an encyclopedia, even on obscure subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The google books sources linked to above link to all people named Swami Pranavananda. I have found none in this link that refer to this specific Swami Pranavananada up for debate that add to this specific person's notability. Other Swami Pranavananda examples are numerous. There are still no reasons to believe this subject to be notable and no reliable sources for THIS Swami Pranavanada. As such, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The onus on providing references belongs to the article's creator and to any one who wants to take on the task. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO, if multiple reliable sources exist then notability is established.TheRingess (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more accurately, if multiple reliable sources exist then notability can or might be established. - House of Scandal (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending further research. This 1982 edition of Who's who in Malaysia confirms some basic biographic info of this particular Swami Pranavananda, adds some not in the article. Cases with shared names are the hardest to research, and as usual the name and spelling variants are legion. The sources given in the article may be sufficiently reliable.John Z (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of society in Malaysia (which is a notable enough country for me :-) ), reliable sources. ~ priyanath talk 03:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore anyone who founded any society in a country you have heard of is notable? House of Scandal (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should have added 'notable' society, which Divine Life Society certainly is in some parts of the world. And no, I didn't say 'any' society, nor did I say any country I 'have heard of'. Your sarcasm and cynicism are also notable, by the way. ~ priyanath talk 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your arguments are incomplete or faulty, expect them to be questioned. Please review Wikipedia guidelines about civility. Me attacking your argument and you attacking me are NOT the same thing. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 'attack' was against an anonymous unsigned edit that misrepresented my argument. ~ priyanath talk 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally added a squiggle too many so it dated but didn't sign. Your response seems disproportionably hostile, but I don't think either of us really meant to offend. I certainly didn't, and sorry if I did. - House of Scandal (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, too - yet another example of (mis)communicating through this strange Series of tubes :-) ~ priyanath talk 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject started the Malaysian branch of the Divine Life Society, then I have two questions; What is the notability of the Divine Life Society in Malaysia? Is this subject any different from individuals who start Divine Live Society branches in other countries? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:22, 16 July 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, not enough third-party coverage.--PeaceNT (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-603[edit]

Nonnotable "mashup artist"; only sources are last.fm and 2 blogs (although one is the New York magazine blog, I don't think it sufficiently shows notability per WP:MUSIC). NawlinWiki (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This artist was mentioned in an article in New York Magazine. Per the notability standard for music, a band/performer would qualify if there was an article in any medium from a reputable source that does not 1) reprint the artists material or 2)merely report who is playing. The article in New York Magazine, while small, does include legitimate editorializing from a legitimate source.
Delete per the nomination it does not meet WP:MUSIC right now. JBsupreme (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete per the nomination it does meet the first criterion of WP:MUSIC. The accountability of the New York Magazine's blog is not in question. Vulture is the daily culture blog of New York Magazine and, while it is an offshoot of the print magazine, it is subjected to the same standards of verification as the print. The editors are established writers published in the print magazine, Slate, The Believer, and other publications. atwardster (talk) 23:10, 15 July 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. (A quick gsearch shows the author is not the same Pierre Amiel as the painter.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Amiel[edit]

Non notable, only reference is a personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think possibly even speedy with a7. Ray Yang (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The person may be notable as a painter, even if he is not as an author. I can't tell whether the author is the same as the painter Pierre Amiel, but the URL given in the writer's article, http://www.pierreamiel.com/ , is one used by the painter . Note the review in Le Figaro reproduced here. --Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After over 5 days of discussion, personal websites aside, this article is still about a non-notable. As is, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:24, 18 July 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 a7, webcontent, no assertion of notability (and WP:SNOW if it's not webcontent). NawlinWiki (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Vapor: The Westfield Files[edit]

Non-notable home movie: fails WP:NFF. Ros0709 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like it also fails WP:MADEUP. AnturiaethwrTalk 15:28, 12 July 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. Recommend adding some of the sources listed in this AfD to the article itself. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Jaya[edit]

Non notable religious leader, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are numerous sources on the subject [22]. Please make some effort to improve articles by citing sources rather than tag them for deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The onus on providing references belongs to the article's creator and to anyone who wants to take on the task. In this case, I do not. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of references in an article is not a reason for deletion. The lack of source for a subject is. You may need to re-read WP:DELETE ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She appears in a significant amount of news articles [23] and appears notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminx (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm likely to change my opinion after such sources are added to the article. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether references proving notability are in an article or not is irrelevant to notability and AfD, although of course getting content backed up by reliable refs is the ulitmate goal.John Z (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if reliable sources are added to the article. ~ priyanath talk 03:12, 15 July 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. Sandstein 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slowrun[edit]

No reliable sources to assert notability, seems to be solely original research Sceptre ^(talk) 13:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Frag references do not assert notability, no evidence of reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely not speedy, the article is well written, structured, and articulated. Although keeping Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS#Google_test in mind, the term slowrun receives 2000 hits on Google alone. There are many slowruns available on Youtube and even a Slowrun Archives of slowruns already referenced in the article itself. Also, no significant discussion or attempt to improve the article has yet been underway. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games, of which I am a member and of which this article is a part of, has not even had the chance to properly peeer review this article and determine what needs to be done to improve it. I believe it should be kept and given a chance to be reviewed and enhanced more seriously by project members. As of now the article is coherent, referenced, and most of all, has potential. --Banime (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I've never heard of this term before, and most of the sources used in the article are from slowrunarchives.googlepages.com, YouTube videos of these slowruns, or have nothing to do with verifying the subject. That being said, it sounds like this concept has a niche of gamers dedicated to doing these "slowruns," and so perhaps it should be documented somewhere. Unless more verifiable sources can be found to prove that this is a very noteworthy topic, I would suggest putting this topic into a new section of the speedrun article, since they seem to be related (they are simply the opposite of each other). — OranL (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references are "good" ones (third-party sources which discuss the subject). Should be a small section in speedrun, if anything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't even merge this. This article baffles me. It reads like a joke. "Players must also be well versed in every function of the game, specifically the pause function"—really? Hit the pause button to take longer, how "well versed" can we get here? I can't find third-party sources to show notability, and I'd be incredibly surprised if any were made in the future, outside of "Weird stuff on the web vol.47"-type articles. Sorry for getting into this in an AFD, but I'm very confused by this whole thing. Pagra shtak 00:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I would have gone with merging this into Speedrun if that article wasn't already massive. I believe that sources to assert notability could be found but they might be difficult to find. The article could do with a cleanup. Just because we don't have sources asserting notability, doesn't mean there aren't any. I work in the gamedev industry and this term has come up from time to time. I recall there being an article or mention about this in "The Escapist" or even on Gameasutra, but can't find it. Icemotoboy (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Agreeing with Icomotoboy, I think it should be deleted as compared to merging with Speedrun, judging by the sheer size of the article. MuZemike (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:WEB. The references provided are non-sources, just arbitrary videos taken from YouTube. The entire article is just somebody's essay, full of OR and how-to guides based on the OR. At best, redirect this page to Speedrun and include a short paragraph there. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be an elaborately constructed hoax and/or joke article. Nifboy (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear lack of notability (which is different than familiarity, popularity, etc.). Established editors should not have to wonder if the subject of an article is a hoax. JohnnyMrNinja 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the NEO, OR and RS issues raised above. Eusebeus (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Banime. Mathmo ^Talk 05:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty hard-core original research. There's basically nothing in the way of referenced claims (or referenceable claims) here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:07, 17 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational informatics[edit]

Doesn't describe the subject in a way which can be understood by a non-expert. May correspond to a term created by the sole reference, who may also be the principle editor. {{Prod}} removed by an indescrimnent {{prod}}-remover who hasn't left a reason. ~~(It had been 5 days 1 hour when the {{prod}} was removed, so executing the prod might be a valid outcome.)~~ — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May? The nomination's speculation is easily refuted by a search. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violation of WP:NEO. Ray Yang (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to delete. In any case, the phrase is obviously well-established since a topic appears under this heading in another encyclopedia over 10 years ago, as my search link shows. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NEO would be a reason to delete. I'm now not convinced it's accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEO policy does not apply to this article. Organisational Informatics is a legitimate, established topic in the Organization Development field. University classes are taught about it. And it is a requirement for certain degree programs. The article may simply need the category changed to Category:Organizational studies and human resource management.

Keep as a real and valid subject for an encyclopedic article. Tagged for expert attention as it's quite difficult to understand. Significantly written about in the wider world - Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comment above, this is an established academic topic in the Org Dev ouvre and should be represented in Wikipedia. The article is necessary and I fully agree with Arthur Rubin's adding the expert tag to get help in making the article more readable for laypeople. The category just needs to be corrected. Deebki 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsu Hadeishi[edit]

Non notable creator of meditation weblog. Article is also an advertisement for this weblog. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, given Ism_schism (talk · contribs)'s Quixotic deletion spree. Google search news — goethean ॐ 14:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The pool of talent in the neighborhood is nothing if not eclectic. It includes the sculptor Tim Blum, whose cast metal figures and faux-scientific contraptions are based on Duchampian puns, and Mitsu Hadeishi, a young filmmaker and philosopher who studied physics and dance at Harvard and uses his loft for screenings. --Art section of The New York Times
  - Reply The above reference is only in passing. The article is not about Mitsu Hadeishi, but only mentions the person. For this article to stand it needs two things. First, how is this person notable? Second, what reliable sources back up these claims to notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question What signs of notability led to this article being created? Does anyone, and/or the author of the article, know of any reliable sources that are not included in the article? It is possible that this is a niche field, and the subject is notable in that field - but sources are needed to establish notability in a niche field. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The google news search link provided by Goethean seems to me to prove his non-notability: it finds only four stories, all seemingly mentioning him in trivial ways. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage required by WP:BIO. — David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above although I am somewhat of an inclusionist. Also, I find the reference above to "Ism_schism (talk · contribs)'s Quixotic deletion spree" highly inappropriate and irrelevant. Experienced editors often take on tasks in "batches"; today it might be proposing articles for deletion, tomorrow it might be adding project templates, etc. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read the very brief article, and was left saying "And?" There's nothing there to assert notability, nor does there seem to be anything else asserting his notability, either. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Fg2 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe there are publications in the Japanese language. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's take a look at the article. It states the following: (1) The subject is a computer programmer, experimental film curator, and the author of a blog. (2) The blog discusses certain topics. (3) The subject organizes events at his loft. (4) The subject heads the technical development for an internet company. Statement 1 does not include any reason for an encyclopedia to have an article about him; being any or all of those things is no particular reason for inclusion. Statement 2 is about the topics in the blog, but does not add any information about its importance, such as its influence on a community. Statement 3 adds some human interest, but still doesn't say why Wikipedia should have an article about him. Statement 4 would be the long-sought-after reason for an article about him if it said he heads development for some important company for which development is important, but there's no information about the significance of the company, or even the importance of development to the company. Nothing answers the question, "Why should Wikipedia have an article about this person?" Fg2 (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Indeed, Mitsu Hadeishi is no one who merits an article unless we all are. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have listed the article under Website deletion sorting to see if any editors in that project have anything to say on the notability of the site Synthetic Zero weblog, that is central to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:But if Synthetic Zero weblog is the one that is notable, then what we do is to have an article on the blog, not its author. -- Taku (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't look like that he is notable. -- Taku (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent 20 minutes trying to find reliable sources to support this article, in both English and Japanese, and found nothing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:53, 20 July 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. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relative location[edit]

A dictionary definition that probably cannot ever be more than that. Gwernol 13:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the article's long edit history, it remains a dictionary definition. Note that much of the previous versions consist of vandalism and associated reversions of vandalism. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A definition, and an obvious one, at that. Ray Yang (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Absolute location where it's also defined. Not enough for own article. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:42, 13 July 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AbidingRadio[edit]

Contested prod. Article on an Internet radio station that fails to provide evidence that the station is notable. Gwernol 13:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Zero references. Borderline spam.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ironically, the author himself provided a link to a site that demolishes the station's notability: Abidingradio.com has a traffic rank of: 782,550 If this is to be a notable radio website, one would expect a much higher ranking. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:11, 12 July 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. The subject has been proven as obviously notable as per WP:MUSIC. There are reliable sources and the subject is notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Davis (musician)[edit]

Non notable musician, no reliable sources and possible original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Ism schism (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a resonable amount of coverage in Google News search [24]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than enough ghits to pass WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, highly notable musician, mentioned in newspaper articles, a fact which is noted in the article. This is part of Ism schism (talk · contribs)'s and Wikidas (talk · contribs) recent deletion spree, which seems to target New Age figures. — goethean ॐ 13:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely passes WP:MUSIC. WilliamH (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I am happy to opine such as because, although I am somewhat of an inclusionist, I've had to give "thumbs down" to the last half-dozen or so AfD subjects I've reviewed. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. --Bardin (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, but aggressively remove any content which does not meet WP:V policy. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:34, 15 July 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 ǀ 76 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Astra Radio[edit]

Contested prod on article that fails to establish notability of this Internet radio station Gwernol 13:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to establish it's notability. No verifiable 3rd party references. Google news search brings up a single hit with a single sentence on what appears to be a blog. Fails WP:N--Rtphokie (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the Joey Donovan article appears to have no serious claim to notability besides this radio station. If we delete the radio station, we should delete the bio as well. Ray Yang (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, and I don't find anything on google, either. AndyJones (talk) 18:45, 22 July 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) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Migration[edit]

WP:N Apparently an idea espoused by a neo-Nazi (?) movement, but the article does not cite a single independent/non-primary source, and a quick search on Google shows mostly separatist organization websites, blogs and forums. Originally PRODed, but contested by User:CCWWuss, who has thus far not addressed any issues raised in the PROD, nor any of the dozens of other PRODs contested. Mosmof (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent, published evidence to show this is notable. Gwernol 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not mentioned in secondary sources, also seems to be mainly about the ideas of one person. Borock (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless thoroughly revamped from sources, probably with a new name. There was such a concept back in the heyday of the US neo-Nazi movement, mostly centered on Idaho, and a lot of the Nazis or white supremacists moved out there at the very least because there was such a high percentage of whites (or low percentage of minorities). But this is mostly primary-sourced material about one guy espousing this under a certain name. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogs and Forums are not independent reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 10:28, 13 July 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. Seems enough evidence has surfaced that this is a notable BIO. Article of course needs improvements, marking it as such. Keeper ǀ 76 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Deida[edit]

Non notable spiritual leader/author, possible original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Google news and Ism schism (talk · contribs)'s bad faith nomination spree. — goethean ॐ 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am concerned as well about the AfD spree of the nom. Please slow down and work to improve articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief -- this article's been around for two years, with upwards of 150 edits, and nobody's been able to give a reliable third-party source? Ray Yang (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This author's work is of zero historical, academic and even popular significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.110.144 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have ample book references, though is work seems infrequently cited. With the news articles there appears ample material to meet notability requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - person is relevant (author), & not every article needs to be endless. A short appraisal of his work and the reception of his work should suffice. --Mwimmer (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deida is a notable sexologists. Books published by him are well known. I think we should improve this article rather than deleting it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 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. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight and Crooked Thinking[edit]

Article about a book that appears to fail to meet of criteria for notability for books. The external references quoted are brief endorsements on websites, not the substantial reviews in independent, published media required by WP:NB. Gwernol 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. List of fallacies should include the whole list here; if not, it should be augmented. Please check this before deletion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be something of a classic in the field, and is assigned as reading even today. See, for example, a syllabus. Ray Yang (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of a dozen books listed as recommended, not required, reading for half the course. How is this more notable than the average textbook? We are not Amazon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's moderately older than most books in this category. In fact, as far as books for lay audiences about logical fallacies go, it may well be one of the first. I think it's probably of marginal notability. Minor popular sensation at the time, dimly remembered by academics later. Kinda like the Frontier thesis, only less famous than that :) I run across numerous offhand references to it in various academic and newspaper columns. I believe that notability changes with time ... if this were the 1970s, I'd say it was notable for sure. Now, I don't know. I'm not exactly an inclusionist, but I feel like this may merit a stub. If we do delete, I suggest we redirect to the author, Robert Thouless. RayAYang (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect sounds reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These 609 books all reference the subject, and Google Scholar lists 96 citations to the book, which is pretty impressive for a book of this vintage, and The New York Times ran a 1095-word review. That's just what I could find in a couple of minutes with Google and already adds up to pretty strong notability, even though you would expect most sources for a subject from the 1930s to be offline. I'd also like to recommend that this book be made required reading for all AfD participants. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rather than a superficial application of the "criteria" in the book notability guidelines, let's read the whole thing and use some common sense (as is suggested multiple times in the guideline). in the "other considerations" section, it is mentioned that for non-contemporary books "the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature.". Additionally for academic books (which arguably applies here): "the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions." I say the "academic" label applies here, because books written for the "intelligent layman" fall into the gray area between "mainstream" and "solely for the ivory tower". With Phil Bridger's researching above, I think these common sense considerations clearly show this book is indeed notable. There are plenty of citations in education journals with glowing words like "pioneering". In addition, although this is perhaps not so important, this is one of the few books of this type that I know about. There are many books like this now, but few have reached the status of classic like this one. --C S (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ample material to meet any required notability standard and for a quality article to be written. Links provided by Phil show ample material to pass criteria for notability for books - Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger's comments. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:27, 21 July 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 ǀ 76 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam D. Herz[edit]

Article abut a person that fails to meet the criteria for biographical articles. No independent, published sources to show how the subject is notable.Gwernol 13:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable for much, only mentions in press articles are incidental. Ray Yang (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:43, 22 July 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. While several editors have asserted notability, reliable independent sources haven't appeared. If someone would like this userfied to bring it up to snuff, drop me a line with a link to this AfD. Also, please remember civility and WP:AGF are important in all wikipedia discussions. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Godman[edit]

Non notable religious journalist, no reliable sources, info from personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep in light of Ism schism (talk · contribs)'s nomination spree. Godman is a highly notable proponent of Nisargadatta (also nominated for deletion by Ism Schism). — goethean ॐ 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This is really low to say that I nominated an article for deletion that I did not. Please, keep to topics relevent to this discussion and do not make false accusations against me. These do not further your arguements for keeping this article and are strongly misleading. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I nominate non notable religion related article for deletion. Also, please do review my history and you will see that I have a history of nominating non notables for deletion. David Godman is one such non notable. If you believe otherwise, then please provide proof of notability by citing reliable sources. The article has none. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Onus is on people who like the article to provide reliable sources to document notability. So far, those have not shown. Ray Yang (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Yay for rampant deletionism! — goethean ॐ 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He probably satisfies the less restrictive WP:CREATIVE, based on some googling of other topics I did today, will probably do some more checking tomorrow, but may be unable for a few days after.John Z (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until third party WP:RS showing notability can be found. ~ priyanath talk 03:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs reliable sources. As "simple" as this sounds... he's written a lot of books. Quiet a few. -- there has to be some information about this guy -- unless there all vanity press... CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are neither civil nor productive. Written references are acceptable. Why don't you go to the library rather than swearing at your fellow editors? - House of Scandal (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and I have, which is how I and another saved the Alan Cabal article, but it is pandemic around here that editors nominate for deletion without thinking, vote without researching, and ignore wholly these things called libraries which previous generations seem to have "built." Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge to A. H. Almaas. Ruslik (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Approach[edit]

Non notable, possible original research with no reliable sources. Possible merge to A. H. Almaas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What are you talking about? Did you look at the article before nominating it? Plenty of sources. Bad faith nomination. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The references are from the organization, there are no third party reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google books Google Scholar — goethean ॐ 15:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haven't even looked at the article yet; the speed and number of the delete noms preclude serious inspection. But this university press book on psychotherapy, which devotes several pages to the "Diamond Approach", says "HAMEED ALI'S DIAMOND APPROACH Hameed Ali, who writes under the pen name of AH Almaas (almaas is Arabic for diamond), has created perhaps the fastest growing transpersonal approach on the scene today..." 117 google book hits without him as author. This looks like another snowball keep.John Z (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The google hits you cite are for a person, not for this aritlce titled the Diamond Approach. To date there have been no reasons to believe why this is a notable topic, nor reliable sources that claim such aside from passing references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I made a mistake and was about to correct it. This is the better search. 43 gbook hits on almaas's diamond approach without him as the author. The above search gave 117 books that mention him, not authored by him, more proper for his AfD. University press books are usually considered reliable sources, and several pages are devoted to the "Diamond Approach" in that book; this is usually considered quite sufficient, and more than a passing mention. "Fastest growing" is tantamount to this RS asserting that 'the Diamond Approach is notable topic.' "Passing mention" usually means something like part of a sentence, or a sentence or two, not several pages or a chapter in a book. Cheers,John Z (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For reasons presented above. Ken Wilbur discussions of the approach are referenced in the article, which in itself demonstrates notability. Also, it is not clear to me how this is original research.--Chinawhitecotton (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Is Ken Wilber the only notable source? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply No, and it seems that this has already been addressed - if you click on the google search linked above by John Z and you find a number of other books, including, for example, in Psychotherapy and Spirit: Theory and Practice in Transpersonal Psychotherapy, by Brant Cortrigh Page 90-??; The Spiritual Dimension of the Enneagram: Nine Faces of the Soul By Sandra Maitri, p. 6 and 212, among other books.--Chinawhitecotton (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, possibly, merge and redirect to Almaas. Jayen 466 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To A. H. Almaas. Not enough reliable sources to establish notability of Diamond Approach alone. Redirect and merge with A. H. Almaas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge with Diamond_Approach. Ruslik (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. H. Almaas[edit]

Non notable, possible original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep in light of Ism schism (talk · contribs)'s recent deletion crusade. "possible original research"? I don't even know what that means in connection with an author who obviously exists. Google books Google Web Google Scholar Google News — goethean ॐ 14:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it currently stands. Ism schism (talk · contribs)'s energy is to be commended, not derided. This article fails to provide reliable independent sources to document its notability. If such sources turn up, I can be convinced otherwise. Ray Yang (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - If such sources turn up, I can be convinced otherwise.
- Gee, I guess it would kill you to click on the links I provided. — goethean ॐ 22:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might not. Clicking through reveals a lot of stuff by the guy himself, and almost nothing of any length from reliable sources. The onus is on the article's defenders to provide reliable independent sources. Links to Google searches don't qualify. Ray Yang (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As accidentally explained in the Afd for this author's Diamond Approach, there are at least 117 gbook hits for him, not authored by him. One of them is this, which has a chapter devoted to him - a short bio and a selection. The book is devoted to 30-odd Mystics, Masters, Saints, and Sages throughout the ages, including Buddha, Hui Neng, Saint Catherine of Siena, the Baal Shem Tov and a handful of moderns like Krishnamurti and this AfD subject.John Z (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That is one source. Do you have a second? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already given.--Chinawhitecotton (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable author. refs in google scholar (please scroll past the first 30 or so refs by the author himself) Jayen 466 15:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - Author's article meets quidelines, his personal "Approach" has its own article, so obviously he's notable. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge to A._H._Almaas. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridhwan School[edit]

Non notable school, possible original research, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Ray Yang (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Diamond Approach or A.H. Almaas, and redirected. (or Keep) This was the only high-quality RS I could find specifically about it; of course it is mentioned in some of the many good sources for the other two articles. Should easily be treated in the above articles, or kept according to people's preference.John Z (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Reply I question how a local paper's report on a local religious group counts, as you say, as a "high-quailty RS." This is a local news organization reporting on a local event. This is far from a "high quality RS." Claims as to why this school is notable, and third party reliable sources to back up these claims, are still absent. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't think of the right word at that moment. Perhaps "indisputable" RS? There's no doubt about its independence (third party) and reliability, so "absent" is not correct, just one solid RS is more precise. No time to look at other possible sources.John Z (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Almaas or Diamond approach, no substantial independent notability: [25] --Jayen 466 15:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Diamond Approach --Chinawhitecotton (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To A. H. Almaas. Not enough reliable sources to establish notability of Diamond Approach alone. Redirect and merge with A. H. Almaas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:47, 17 July 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. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaghan Jette Martin[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Minor (in more ways than one) actress, whose only significant role was a made-for-cable movie, 5th-billed. Calton | Talk 12:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view - if we are an IMDB clone then Keep, if we are an encyclopedia with substantial biographies then Delete. I won't rule one way or another unless I'm convinced which of the two Wikipedia is. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this "made for cable movie" had 24.5 million viewers in the premiere weekend. It will be premiering WORLD WIDE over the next 2 months. It was not MINOR in any way. There are already talks for Camp Rock 2 and a Camp Rock 3. Second of all, if you took the time to WATCH the movie, you would see that she is 3rd billing NOT 5th. She is the movie's antagonist. I believe that you have not done YOUR research and need to leave articles alone unless you really know about the subject. Third, she has two songs on the soundtrack, which went GOLD in just 4 weeeks. She had a song on the top 100 on itunes for a month. She also sings backup on two more songs. Please research thoroughly before you make statements about a subject!!! Perhaps you have no kids or are a cable snob, that does not make a subject insignificant to other people. WEML Watch the movie if you don't get that reference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.104.132 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meaghan Jette Martin! Her portrayal of Tess was the whole plot of the movie. If her character had not been in the movie there would have been no plot. That is why she was billed as third lead. Her two songs were the most elaborately choreographed of any of the songs. One has to wonder how someone could think, if they watched the movie, that Meaghan's character wasn't third lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayardxyz (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This cable movie will be a part of pop culture for some time to come. It is known worldwide. It's ridiculous to delete an actress that has had that kind of exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.104.132 (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable actress in a fairly big Disney movie. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete I hate to disagree with Stifle but, I'm not seeing reliable 3rd party sourcing speaking about her to provide notability. The references in the article don't do it (she isn't even mentioned in one of them) and G and GNews seem to only have mention in passing in a number of places (and a video somewhere on Access Hollywood of an interview with her and a couple others). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meaghan! Yes it is true that this young actress is definitely newer on the scene, but in no small way. Meaghan has many credits to her name and third billing in the latest and possibly biggest (as yet) DisneyChannel Original Movie, which to me is not MINOR in any way. It is obvious that this is an actress who has worked hard for most of her life and is now an established actress on her way up! 76.4.251.182 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tvguide.com/PhotoGallery/The_13_Hottest_Young_Stars_To_Watch__1235/2.aspx Listed on TVGuide.com's 13 hottest young stars to watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.104.132 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaghan Martin's character is comparable to the "Sharpay" character in High School Musical one and two this character is certainly not minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.31.189 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a very large production by Disney Channel, anticipated for months and watched by millions. This particular actress had a very large supporting role in the movie! Whoever marked this article for speedy deletion should know the background of the material before making such hasty claims. Rswfire (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep These made-for-TV Disney movies are getting a lot of response, which often has the effect of creating a lot of sources for the actors themselves. I don't like the idea of keeping things out of popularity, but this is a case where it's not the popularity itself, but the results it had (the additional interviews, bios, etc). -- Ned Scott 02:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, my comments here are giving the benefit of the doubt based on past similar experiences. I have no objection to re-reviewing this after a little bit of time, to see how things really turn out. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This performer has sold over 90,000 singles in the month since the CD premiered. There are others on the cast list who have fewer credits, but are not targeted for deletion. Why is this performer being targeted for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.19.149 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I don't even understand why this was put up for deletion. She is a notable performer now, and if this article would be deleted, several other perfomer's pages on Wikipedia should go also, because this gives more information than a lot that I encounter. AND SHE IS NOT 5th BILLED!, She is 3rd, and the main (arguably only) antagonist in the film.Candyo32 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 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 nancy ^(talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Typing with Tones[edit]

Contested prod by third party (sidenote: party seems to have just gone through and contested a lot of prods). Anyway, Wikipedia is not a how-to. Article is potentially an WP:ADVERT for the site listed. No sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Ray Yang (talk) 22:20, 12 July 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. None of the arguments to keep have been able to demonstrate notability. That this group exists is not disputed, but that is not sufficient for inclusion. Shereth 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian European Council[edit]

No sources independent of the organization, obviously doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. Sending letters to newspapers is not sufficient to establish notability. --Filemon (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Sending letters to newspapers is not sufficient to establish notability." Great way of putting it. Ray Yang (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Canadian European Council is a real/legitimate think-tank- these guys have published several pieces (some referenced in the Wikipedia entry) in The San Francisco Chronicle (one of the top 5 US newspapers) and The Daily Star (the Middle-East's leading English language newspaper). They're amongst twelve (only!) Canadian political think-tanks listed in Wikipedia. Granted they’re not a very large/active organization, but that doesn’t constitute in itself a valid reason for removal. I think this entry must be kept: it’s well-written, concise and abides by Wikpidedia guidelines. Moorehaus (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Refactored: original comment moved to talk page. HiDrNick! 12:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They were one of the first professional organizations listed in the Nelson directory of Think Tanks and Research Organizations of Canada- see http://www.mankiwmacro3e.nelson.com/student/organizations.html, and they’re affiliated with the University of Toronto’s Canadian Law and Economics Association. 212.183.134.65(talk)
Comment. A Google search (excluding WP mirrors) for "Canadian European Council" yields one hit, which seems to be a WP mirror that does not provide attribution. Mind matrix 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. The references given in the article would appear to be generated by the organisation themselves, and the listing of organisations given by an anon above merely confirms existence, not notability.-gadfium 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the following reasons: 1) There’s no reason why Canada and Canadian organizations (even midsize ones as long as they’re legitimate and real) should be underrepresented on Wikipedia: The Canadian European Economic Council (CEC) is one of a dozen recognized Canadian political thinks-tanks (most of them actually small by US or UK standards), and, to my knowledge, it’s the only French-Canadian think-tank listed in Wikipedia… 2) When you type: Canadian European on Google, you get 7.4 million pages, the CEC being actually number one… not bad for a small French-Canadian independent organization. I think this entry conforms to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia rules: it may be improved and expanded, but it should definitely be kept. RazeYathrib (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it is possible that this organization in fact doesn't exist. Author of this article, Solferino, also edited another very similar Wikipedia entry, "The European Council (TEC)", that was identified as a hoax and deleted. Compare webpages of these two "think-tanks": http://www.eurocouncil.org/ and http://www.canadianeuropean.com/: texts on these pages are nearly identical. IMO that's at best very suspicious. --Filemon (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. HiDrNick! 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Philemon is wrong (and maybe malevolent): this small French-Canadian think-tank is real and legitimate: this fact is easily VERIFIABLE by checking the French government OFFICIAL REGISTER of associations and non-profit organizations which says it was incorporated in Dec 2001- see link below:

http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/association/index.php?ACTION=Rechercher&HI_PAGE=1&HI_COMPTEUR=0&original_method=get&WHAT=canadian+european+economic+council&JTH_ID=&JAN_BD_CP=&JRE_ID=&JAN_LIEU_DECL=&JTY_ID=&JTY_WALDEC=&JPA_D_D=&JPA_D_F=&rechercher.x=35&rechercher.y=6

Also, as mentioned earlier they’re affiliated with THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO’S CANADIAN LAW AND ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION.(CLEA), a fact easily verifiable by checking CLEA’s website: http://www.canlecon.org/CLEA%20members_09mar05.xls

–User: 212.183.134.65 212.183.134.65 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.125.82 (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Grove Fire Department[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable organization. Brianga (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't appear to have a claim to notability or reliable 3rd party sourcing for verifiability. Not sure if there is a policy I'm unaware of that makes it "inherently" notable though hence, the weak. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schtugenfahrterette[edit]

Clear hoax, failed prod. Storkk (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, G3, blatant and obvious misinformation. 0 Google, Google Books or Google Scholar hits out of Wikipedia. Even if it weren't a hoax, it'd still be completely non-notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, speedy delete "left handed dwarfs which drive Hanson Cabs"? What a knee-slapper. Author should be banned for ten years, or at least until he learns how to tell a joke, whichever takes longer. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged Speedy G3. Obvious hoax. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:46, 12 July 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 Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs). -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Williams[edit]

Declined for prod, probably by subject of the article (username is same as article name; also check the edit summary). Non-notable per WP:PORNBIO (no awards, no mainstream media mentions). I looked for references in reliable sources and could find none. Frank | talk 11:18, 12 July 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 images themselves are not being deleted here, and are still available for use in the main article. Shereth 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruzeiro Esporte Clube colours[edit]

This is just a collection of images, not an encyclopaedia entry - see WP:NOT Dancarney (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cruzeiro Esporte Clube. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing of encyclopedic in this article, and the pictures' copyright status is unclear, probably even unfree or licensed under a false claim of public domain. --Angelo (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and condense - condense the history of sponsor information to a paragraph in the main club article. The overly detailed kit pictures are unnecessary, but the sponsorship information is useful and encyclopedic. matt91486 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article, and replace dodgy images with standard football kit template ones. Giant Snowman 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main team article using standard template as suggested by Giant Snowman - this has already been done in Bristol Rovers for example. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't need just collections of images. -- Alexf⁴² 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not an article in the traditional meaning of this word (at least in my opinion). Ruslik (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the useful information into a "Club crest and colours" section in the main article and delete the rest. The pictures are definitely deletable as the more recent ones are derivatives of copyrighted works (i.e. sponsor logos). – Pee Jay 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leave no redirect. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:03, 21 July 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 Already deleted. This is the product of the confused author of the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterModule has been closed as delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterModule[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete it. Non notable, needs to have more coverage. Juggernaut0102 (talk) 10:37, 12 July 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 all are favoring deletion. --JForget 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wellow F.C.[edit]

Contested prod (after 6 days...). Club has never played above Step 7 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase,[26] thus failing to meet the generally accepted criteria for English football clubs (for previous consensus on the cut-off point, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 other AfDs on clubs in the same situation). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything I can find backs up Number57's assessment. They don't meet our regular notability standards, and I see no reason here to rule break. Vickser (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - they were playing in local city leagues until a couple of years ago, played in a county league for a few years and are now back in a local city league - they miss the notability criteria by a mile. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:25, 14 July 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 nancy ^(talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chas Newkey-Burden[edit]

(was an incomplete afd) Non-notable and non asserted? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've found some coverage of his books. Haven't had time to look further yet but I think this helps to establish notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:BIO we need non-trivial coverage of the person to support this biographical Wikipedia article. Not just book reviews. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sometimes easier to prove notability for someone who has done one thing for a long time than it is for someone with a varied career. I wouldn't be surprised if again we don't reach a consensus on this one. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are neither civil nor productive. Written references are acceptable. Why don't you go to the library rather than swearing at your fellow editors? - House of Scandal (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and I have, which is how I and another saved the Alan Cabal article, but it is pandemic around here that editors nominate for deletion without thinking, vote without researching, and ignore wholly these things called libraries which previous generations seem to have "built." Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:18, 20 July 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 ǀ 76 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All-Campus Radio Network[edit]

Contested prod. Original deletion reason: article fails to assert why this internet radio station is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references

Procedural nomination Gwernol 09:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Procedural nominations are not obligatory on contested PRODs. We have enough to do at AFD without having to consider them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issue of substance - is this radio station notable from proper sources. Thanks, Gwernol 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion in that case, except that the trivia section has got to go. I couldn't tell whether you agreed with the PROD reason. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not inherently notable, unless it's an FCC licensed broadcaster. The Ohio University radio station is WOUB-FM and WOUB (AM), and from what I can tell, this partiuclar "college station" hasn't been broadcasting since 1974, when it went cable. The article itself doesn't suggest notability, even if the claim of being the first college/cable radio station is verified by sources. I like the "We have enough to do at AfD" argument, thanks to everyone for taking the time from their busy schedules. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a couple of newspaper articles mentioning it in passing but all are focused on another subject. Lacks notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support/keep if all radio stations with an FCC call sign even if defunct are notable i can't see why a network of radios even at the campus level would not be notable^MY♥_INchile 06:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because, unlike licensed radio stations, there is no consensus among wikipedia editors that radio networks are inherently notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the name, I don't see anything in the article that indicates that it's on any campus, let alone "all campus", or that you can listen to it on a "radio" or that it's even a "network" (which would involve linking more than one broadcaster). Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 14 July 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. Needs cleanup but it is verifiable, and apparently consensus is that it is notable enough to include. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kabhi Naa Kabhie[edit]

Notability not established and unable to be ascertained. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate stub. Other references to this Hindi network television drama, broadcast in India and starring Ekta Kapoor, call it Kahe Naa Kahe. Mandsford (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, soap running on major network. --Soman (talk) 22:16, 13 July 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. Shereth 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best In Show Radio[edit]

Contested prod. Original deletion reason: article fails to assert why this internet radio station is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references

Procedural nomination Gwernol 09:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Procedural nominations are not obligatory on contested PRODs. We have enough to do at AFD without having to consider them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were. I am nominating this because I believe the original deletion reason has enough merit to warrant a debate here. Please address the issue of notability addresses in the deletion reason provided. Gwernol 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I couldn't tell at first whether you agreed with the PROD reason. Delete due to unclear claim to notability and insufficient evidence of independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable and unverified.Yobmod (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, no reliable sources. AndyJones (talk) 19:18, 22 July 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. BJ^Talk 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense (program)[edit]

Original deletion reason: article fails to assert why this internet radio program, out of thousands, is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references.

This is a procedural nomination after contested Prod Gwernol 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Procedural nominations are not obligatory on contested PRODs. We have enough to do at AFD without having to consider them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were. I am nominating this because I believe the original deletion reason has enough merit to warrant a debate here. Please address the issue of notability addresses in the deletion reason provided. Gwernol 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion in that case. I couldn't tell whether you agreed with the PROD reason. I note that this program is not just an Internet radio program, but is syndicated to broadcast radio. On the other hand, I can't find verifiable information about how many stations actually air it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. All references inside are to the organization that produces the show. Additionally, 15k "subscribers" is hardly overwhelming even if true, given its worldwide scope. A moderately popular YouTube vid of the day gets three times that. Ray Yang (talk) 22:22, 12 July 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. Wizardman 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Miccarelli III[edit]

Contested prod. Subject is a candidate for Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Otherwise seems to fail WP:BIO. The closest thing he has is the National Colelge Republican chairmanship which doesn't seem to cut it for me. With notability not inherited from candidacy, hard to see what else can push him over the threshold. Montco (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being a candidate is not enough to confer notability. Gwernol 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. This person has a little more WP:RS coverage than most candidates at the State Rep. level, but the substantial coverage is about his running for office. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~. The National College Republicans are a fairly big deal, but he doesn't seem to have done much of notability while there Ray Yang (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection and further research, change to Keep. If we read WP:BIO1E, we find that it says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." Most of his media sources (including an NPR article I've just added to the list of references) talk about Mr. Miccarelli as a veteran, young leader, talented politician, etc., first, and the particular office for which he's running second. The fact of his candidacy brings him to their attention and adds to his notability, but the person, rather than the event, is garnering the media interest -- after all, how many candidates manage to snag the endorsement of the union to which his opponent belongs? RayAYang (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and redirect to Chutney. Ruslik (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onion chutney[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Prod removed without explanation, so taking to AfD Gwernol 09:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Chutney the non how-to element can be accommodated there -Hunting dog (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chutney. Most of the page is a How-To guide. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chutney where it belongs (and avoid edit wars about it as different types of onion chutney exist in different cuisines). Doug Weller (talk) 21:18, 12 July 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 Carus and The True Believers. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carus Thompson[edit]

No notability outside band Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Carus and The True Believers. Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carus and The True Believers. Dan arndt (talk) 06:50, 14 July 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 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scampenstein[edit]

Article about a film that does not show how this subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No reliable sources so not verifiable. Because the film does not yet exist, it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Prod was removed without explanation. Gwernol 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no claim of notability except for being first of its kind, but its "kind" here is a bit too narrowly defined for this criterion to apply without another claim of notability. Also, WP:CRYSTAL, and there is no guarantee that the producer will come up with a finished product. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlwaysOnion (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL Artene50 (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't DeleteThis code is all Gobbledegook. Its not a film. Its a internet community generated and funded film project that is intended to result in a film. that is why it is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap10xb1s (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present I agree with Cap10xb1s in principle, but given WP:CRYSTAL we should wait a bit.--Bedivere (talk) 22:40, 17 July 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 (G3) as blatant misinformation. —Travis ^talk 20:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acts 1[edit]

There is no such Jordanian satellite. The article is copied from Ofeq. חובבשירה (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, the article is fake and copied from Ofeq. Notice that the text is almost exactly the same, and the InterWiki links lead nowhere... Barak Sh (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous comments. I've warned the user who created the article. okedem (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete seems to be a complete hoax. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (even though I de-tagged it as such), pretty obvious that it's either a test or a wind-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Certainly a hoax. Noon (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you all know the facts. why don't you delete this "article" now, before someone would "learn" from it? נוי (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - HOAX DGtal (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This Afd should not have been opened, its a SD if there ever was one... 89.139.36.147 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As an Israeli who is familiar with it's space program I can count all too many mistakes in it. as an example Palmachim_Airbase. also - one can look in the history section and see that large portions of it were originally copied from from Ofeq. Amirber (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7 speedy delete as copyvio and blatant hoax. This is an Israeli Ofeq, not a Jordanian satellite as Amirber notes. Artene50 (talk)

10:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete that is stuped! you all know it is a hoax and steal don't delite it. נוי (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've re-added the speedy-delete template. This is becoming ridicules. This needs to be deleted immediately, not dragged on and on. There's no argument here - this page is pure and obvious vandalism. okedem (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn’t qualify as patent nonsense, but it does fall under CSD G3 as blatant misinformation. —Travis ^talk 20:01, 13 July 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 a non-notable, vanity-press author; zero Google News Ghits. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Valtieri[edit]

The only claims to notability are some plays written by him (but the nearest thing to a review is [27], which is apparently just a local announcement - it gives show times and ticket prices) and a single published novel, for which only personal websites, or sites not mentioning it, are given. It seems that it is self-published through lulu.com (the site is blacklisted but the page is : (...)/content/517623). For what is worth, the corresponding article in Italian Wikipedia has been deleted. Goochelaar (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrivo in italiana, visto che chi propone la cancellazione è madrelingua italiana. Sono state chieste prove che lo scrittore che gli spettacoli citati non siano lettera morta, ma qualcosa di rappresentato. La cosa è stata fatta, nel modo possibile (visto che non si possono caricare le immagini degli articoli e di tutte le recensioni, come era stato fatto, per problemi di copyright. Nell'era di internet, la maggior parte delle segnalazioni e discussioni sull'autore sono in rete, ma non si può perché è pubblicità personale etc. Insomma si è fatto il possibile, consapevoli che non si stava parlando di Shakespeare. Su wikipedia, specialmente quella in italiana ci sono voci che riguardano attori sconosciuti apparsi mezza volta in una puntata mai vista dalla gente. L'impressione generale è che, nonostante l'enciclopedia sia "libera" (questo non vuol dire scrivere la qualunque, ma se non si scrivono oscenità o palesi falsità o scemenze o voci offensive, non si vede dove sia il problema), il tutto sia in balia di "controllori" zelanti a seconda dell'umore, altrimenti non si capirebbe come ci siano voci (di cui nessuno propone la cancellazione) assolutamente inutili. Detto questo (lo sfogo è dovuto all'inutilità di ogni tentativo di adeguarsi alle "regole"), mi scuso se sono un po' stanco di essere politicamente corretto e ti prego di perdonare i toni. Se proprio è necessario essere pubblicati (magari a pagamento) da Feltrinelli, per avere "rilevanza enciclopedica", beh, fate un po' come ve pare (stai a Roma, capisci il romano, no?). Grazie ancora, Smiwave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.230.145 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with deletion/Maurizio Valtieri Smiwave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.230.145 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't understand Italian: The article creator is agitated about the article being nominated for deletion and argues that although the encyclopedia is free, there are "controllers" deciding what should be included. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin ( ¡? ) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; no evidence of reliable sources. RGTraynor 08:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. Probably notable, but needs a good Internet source first. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Samauri, I did some work and while i certainly verified everything, I still failed to find any evidence of Notability.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 13:14, 22 July 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 James Bond allies in Licence to Kill. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Lamora[edit]

I couldn't help reading the article and thinking, "So what?" It's been tagged for several months as needing sourcing and doesn't even have enough unsourced content (let alone assertion of notability) to justify its existence... Paliku (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of possible references out there including these. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of James Bond allies in Licence to Kill. In fact, what references to this character exist outside of the in-universe context? RGTraynor 09:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per RGTraynor; this belongs there.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 13:22, 22 July 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 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John H Graham[edit]

The text of this article is almost unreadable. Although it gives a long list of minor recognitions received by the subject, none of them appear to imply notability. Looking for information about the subject on the Web, it appears that he has held some off-field management jobs in minor league baseball and was the general manager of a minor league team for a year or two. It also appears that he may have done some writing for a local paper and some local radio work. There's so little information available that it's hard to be sure what he's done. I wasn't able to find any evidence that he meets WP:BIO. BRMo (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now...this guy seems to have achieved notability in several endeavors, especially in minor league baseball. But the lack of citations and the disorganized state of the article - not to mention the curious range of content - makes me suspicious that this article's content was plagiarized from somewhere. Brain Rodeo (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, do you think he's done that rises to the level of notability? It's true that lots of minor awards are listed, but it isn't clear to me what any of them are for. And where is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that's required for notability? BRMo (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards themselves suggest notability. The list of accomplishments in the first paragraph of the article suggests some exceptional accomplishments in his field, though his involvement in those accomplishments isn't explained. A number of sources can be found with a simple Google search for "John Graham baseball" instead of "John H Graham" - but it's unclear how many are specific to this John Graham. I think notability would be more obvious if the article were better written. I know that's circular reasoning, but circles can be nice. Brain Rodeo (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. The whole thing reads like self-promotion, maybe lifted from the guy's resumé. Although he was just an office worker on minor league teams, the article cites the teams' on-field accomplishments, giving the impression that he played an important role. I don't see any evidence that's the case. He won the "Dancy award", but the only references to the award on the Web seem to be on a handful of Web sites that he controls. Here's is the only Web site I've found that provides any information on what he actually did in minor league baseball: [28]. Although it's also self-promotional, it suggest that his "17 years Professional Baseball Experience" started out of high school in low level office jobs, and he eventually worked his way up to assistant general manager, then business manager, and finally general manager. But a general manager of a low level minor league team isn't necessarily notable. We need more than this guy's self-promotion. We need some reliable, independent sources. And I can't find them. BRMo (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems more like a personal/family biography of the person or a curriculum vitae rather than an encyclopedia article. I tried reading the thing, but I still can't see why he meets WP:N. There are a lot of links to organizations and the like, but nothing that shows me why this guy is notable. He isn't mentioned in any of the links I followed. If this article meets WP:N then anyone could write an article about one's self and include links to one's high school's web page, college's web page, web pages of employers, pages that describe hobbies, etc. That just doesn't cut it. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really can't figure out from this article what sports occupation this person held at each stage of his career, which is essential to any article about a person in the sports world. If the article received a complete rewrite, and independent reliable sources were provided to support his notability per WP:BIO, I might reconsider. The supporters of this article should be encouraged to look up other people who have held comparable positions in baseball to see if Wikipedia has articles about them. If so, the structure of those articles should be used as a model for this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as a baseball historian, there are serious flaws with this article, to the point where I am thinking WP:HOAX. Some of the links are either dead ends or lead to foreign websites. I will need to see some serious verifiability to promote keeping this article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sorry, but a list of alleged nominations and awards at the low minor league level doesn't at all "suggest" notability. It alleges notability. Our job at AfD isn't to swallow any superficial reference that sounds good, but to find out whether in that field of endeavor such honors actually are notable. This fellow isn't. RGTraynor 09:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think RGT has put it into good words ... this is alleged notability, not claimed. There are no sources to defend what is being implied, and invoking WP:DUCK, I think I need to be convinced otherwise. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass the smell test. For example, the '80 Phillies were not 100-40 (try 91-71) and the clubs mentioned haven't won four pennants combined in the last 30 years. Also, if he was a top executive, why was he doing PA announcing for college games at the same time? Giants2008 (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually, I think the team with the 100–40 record was the minor league Peninsula Pilots of the Carolina League, which were a farm team for the Philadelphia Phillies [29]. Graham apparently was employed by the Peninsula team from about 1976 to 1986 ([30]). I don't know what his job was with them, but since he graduated from high school in 1978, it's doubtful that he held an important position by 1980. Of course, the article is so poorly written that I had to turn to other sources to try to figure this stuff out. BRMo (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resume, and there's not really anything notable enough for the encyclopedia in there. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:55, 14 July 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 nancy ^(talk) 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerfew[edit]

Non-notable musician. Article is written by User:Kerfew, so obvious conflict of interest is present. Most of the article is unsourced. This article has also been speedily deleted two times in the past, and has been recreated by the same user. CyberGhostface (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand, in fact it is was me doing it for him. I have since made my own log in and tried to write it from non-biased viewpoint. I think 'Kerfew' is not as notable as some though i feel his page is still worthy. I will source the article. --JD Patel (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see how it fulfils any of the music criteria for notability. And if you're writing it on his behalf, there's a conflict of interests. --Ka renjc 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kerfew? Gesundheit. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article has been recreated in the past. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was re-created in the past but was sub-standard.. only had 3 lines... .. This one has been made using S-ENDZ and dizzee Rascal's format( As codes and subheading where already present, all i had to do was change content! Please can someone check to see if this page is now Okay ?

--JD Patel (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. --Crusio (talk) 16:58, 20 July 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 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green writing[edit]

Fails WP:NEO. Mercifully, no trees were cut down in the presentation of this AfD discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this entirely - for how can green writing be considered less notable than, for instance, Bedlingtonshire? I should appreciate a reply if anyone has the time! Saul Douglas Whitby (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails points 1 and 2 of WP:SOAP. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; nn, essay. JJL (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:33, 12 July 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. BJ^Talk 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green search engines[edit]

Curious and unsupported neologism - a Google search of "green search engine" turns up a handful of articles with a different meaning [31]. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the two sites listed may describe themselves by that term, neither one is notable, and neither is the concept. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn concept. JJL (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unless reliable sources can be found using that term in this way. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWell it´s true that one can discuss what the term "green search engine" really means and maybe it is so that one should discuss the different types of green search engines in the article itself. I believe however that most people would find the two engines already mentionned in the article to be the greenest as they do aim to plant trees and where the first ones out. After them many others have appeared so it is not unreasonable to think that this is a new internet trend (there where some "charity" search engines before, but not totally green ones). I think that the term "green search engine" has been coined and was surprised not to find it already in wikipedia. So I believe that the article is relevant myself. As more and more "green search engines" are appearing I think it would be negligence not to include an article about it in the wiki. Of course one could work more on the article and surely people will. Ecocho has already an article in the wiki so why not the term "green search engines" itself? I mean Google and Yahoo might copy the concept anytime in the future but first out in April this year (2008) where Ecocho and Treehoo and I think that is reason enough to include them in the article. For references to this new term as it is mainly used on the net see here: readwriteweb.com/archives/15_of_the_best_green_search_engines.php#comments --- treehugger.com/files/2008/07/best-green-search-engines.php --- floridagardener.com/misc/greensearch.htm --- guidemegreen.com/forum/reply.php?topic_id=120 --- Chers, Jose
Keep I say also keep. But wanted to add that the Treehoo web was started as early as march (the 13th more exactly) as the webpage heropeople.com and already then used the devise "You surf - we plant trees" which Echoco later turned to "You search - we plant trees", so I think that the credits should go to Treehoo alone. Although I believe that more "green search engines" could be included to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Ptrs (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete/merge It's not Wikipedia's business to have articles on a business model. If you want to include with and article on Search Engines and/or an article on Green Businesses BMW(drive) 17:04, 16 July 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 per WP:CSD#A1. It's not quite "very short" but it's certainly lacking in enough context to identify its fictional milieu. Doesn't seem to be G4 as the previous deletion was speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalgarian[edit]

Not sure what this is supposed to be, no sources, no apparent notability, and Google is no help. Unfortunately I don't see any CSD criteria that this fits. I skipped prod because the author would contest it. Oren0 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - Snake oil.PB666 ^yap 02:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged Speedy A1. Written as if the subject were in real life. If it is indeed a fictional concept, the article gives no clue whatsoever about which work of fiction describes this. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to delete it as A1 but I'm not sure it fits the criterion. I'll let another admin judge. Oren0 (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete endorced. Un-encyclopedic nonsence.--Pmedema (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy or otherwise) A1, indeed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4: recreation of deleted material. It was deleted before as G1, and I assume everyone must have meant this, since A1 is for lack of context (this article has enough context to let me know its a hoax). — _Maggot^Syn 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: tagged as G4. One more time and I'm filing a salt. — _Maggot^Syn 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - G4 doesn't apply either ("This does not apply to content that has been undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions"). Oren0 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On a technicality, the log doesn't specify that it was speedied as patent nonsense. I assumed it, since its the only one that would have fit. Either way, its speedy applicable. Change the tag back for me then. — _Maggot^Syn 04:51, 12 July 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 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chill (rapper)[edit]

Very chuffy bio, sourced to Myspace, ton of red/mislinks.. some grand unverified claims about deals with Sony and Pepsi. Deiz talk 02:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't support notability because all the claims, such as being a comic book character as Princess Chill and a Sony music contract (which would be with BMG) has absolutely no reliable source! Just enough to say that perhaps this person does exist but all the rest is a weave of stuff thats just made up. --Pmedema (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC. Just being signed with Sony BMG (which is not a label!) isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Makes alot of big claims that aren't sourced. Seems to be a press release. Created by a Possible COI account. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator just left a message on my talk page confirming that he is this artist's producer. That makes it a violation of WP:COI. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:53, 15 July 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 nancy ^(talk) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cronenworth Jr.[edit]

No evidence that this individual meets Wikipedia notability standards. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the silver star is pretty notable,they don't give those out in a box of cheerios...unfortunately the Military History Wiki Project says Nations highest honor, which this isn't WP:MILMOS#NOTE LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legotech. Also, check whether the AfD tag has been removed from this page. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Legotech. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 18:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you are going to let only the highest medals be notable, why are people that didn't get high medals allowed, but this one is not? Example: Guy Gabaldon received only a Navy Cross - this is not the highest attainable medal. If I must assist my family in gathering more notable information about my great-grandfather, I will, but explain your reasons for deletion in more detail. --Xandell (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gabaldon was an author and political figure as well as being a medal recipient. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:21, 14 July 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. BJ^Talk 23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop On Demand[edit]

Article about a discontinued Web service/product that is not notable and has no references. Speedy declined because of mis-catagorization so brought to AfD. Pmedema (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable (maybe that's why it no longer exists...) --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not establish notability according to WP:WEB. (Blancharb: A self-fufilling notability prophecy? lol.)--Finalnight (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain? (Where's AfdAnons? Please excuse my Wikiprocess ignorance). I note that there is an article on "web desktops", which doesn't (yet) appear to have mentioned Desktop On Demand, or its demise. Maybe DoD was a web desktop, maybe it wasn't, but the fact was that DoD offered more functionality than many/most "web desktops", but apparently couldn't make a viable business out of it. Does this not make it notable for those interested in why businesses and technologies fail (which many do) as well as why they succeed? See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTNlLTUXxM4 which presumably can no longer be construed as blatant advertising. "Those who cannot read about the past are condemned to repeat it" (nearly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.247.139 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 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 kept - snowball - just a misunderstanding on the nom's part, I'm sure. ;-) —Giggy 13:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carrière[edit]

I'm tried to search for this, article is confusing and doesn't seem real. I have no problem with being completely wrong with this, but it seems entirely made up by the article creator. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 00:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, didn't you read my references? Smith Jones (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your references? I didn't see any references. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 00:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're there and they check out; he just didn't have them listed anywhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opts, thanks SarcastidIcealist. I had forgotten. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Sources were provided. Epbr123 (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper... you withdrawing your nom? --Pmedema (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks decent to me, glad you got the reflist sorted out! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 02:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though references still need some work, http should be replaced with the pages title, journal.PB666 ^yap 03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pulling a Keep out of my hat The article is not well-written, admittedly. But Eva's notability in this world can be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, needs cleanup and lots of it, but not deletion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the aritlcle needs work but the author clearly worked very hard to make ti the way it is now and it is beter to continue to fix the article and than to delete it for Smith Jones (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought you were the author? LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arthur Conan Doyle any relevant portions. The article subject has little individual notability, and the useable information from this article would be better in the article of the more notable subject, Doyle. S. Dean Jameson 04:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N and WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:14, 12 July 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. It has been rightly pointed out that books by a notable author are not inherently notable themselves, and consensus is that insufficient notability has been demonstrated for this title. Shereth 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ism_schism this comment was added by User:Goethean at 01:29, 12 July 2008, note added by Abd (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The lack of notability of this subject is not helped by a review of my edit history. If you have any reliable sources or reasons why this subject is notable - these would be good to add to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Why are Ism schism (talk · contribs) and Wikidas (talk · contribs) nominating so many articles for deletion? — goethean ॐ 01:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For me... Because this article lacks both notability and reliable sources - it deserves a Strong Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some editors do the dirty work of going though non-notable subjects and nominating them, that does not make this a less credible application of the policy. Policy is that if the subject not notable, ie no 3rd party sources exist to prove the claims of notability, it should be deleted. There are no such sources to support this article. Please read what wikipedia is not and WP:NOTABILITY. Check it:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wikidās ॐ 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Google searches: Google books Google Scholar Google News archives Google News — goethean ॐ 21:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after examination of the above links, the book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is deemed to be not notable. A book advertisement. Wikidās ॐ 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 169 Google Books hits, 64 Google Scholar hits, and umpteen thousand Google Web hits aren't notable. Fascinating. I'm sure you'd feel exactly the same way if this debate was over a Vashnavite figure. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many vaishnavite figures with more google hits may be deleted, self published or promotional info is not from reliable sources, that are missing. Clearly not a single academic source that is independent of the subject, that discusses or reviews this book. Books like that can stay where they are - in the book stores, not in Encyclopedia. Wikidās ॐ 22:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they might be hypothetically. But I'm guessing that they won't be. — goethean ॐ 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas claims to have examined "the above links," fifteen minutes after they were posted. He must be really, really fast, so perhaps he overlooked something. Just starting to look at a search on "Nisargadatta Maharaj," I found, for example, in the first page of results, [32], which showed a page of quotations from this very book in Robert Kastenbaum, Encyclopedia of Adult Development, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1993. Given the prominence of Nisargadatta Maharaj, and that this nominated book seems to be the major book about him (or "by" him"), it would be astonishing if it weren't widely quoted. The nomination was preposterous. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, over 2 years in which to have procured them. Ray Yang (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because, just because. WP:IAR, and the encyclopedia is better with this article than without it, it is that simple. If the article contains unsourced claims, remove them. But most of the article is verifiable, rather simply. I see this article as a subarticle of Nisargadatta Maharaj, he is notable, and we should have more such, not less. Wikidas, please be devoted to the encyclopedia (which means the utility and pleasure it brings to its readers, in the end), not narrow interpretations of guidelines taken as rules.--Abd (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, there is reliable source showing notability. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] etc.
Comment - admin closing note: Even if the said Nisargadatta Maharaj is notable, is does not seem to be proper to keep a particular book by him as a separate article. Unless there are objections, the book section should be merged into the article itself or deleted. Notability of Nisargadatta Maharaj has nothing to do with the book, that was not even written by him and is just transcripts. There are thousands of books, by really notable people, do all of them need a separate article especially if it was never a subject to third party independent studies or even an academic review? Obviously not. Wikidās ॐ 19:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is not a ridiculous conclusion for this AfD, but really that should be up to the editors of the main article, and Merge can be proposed and accomplished without an AfD. (It is a variation on "Keep," since the article is not deleted but merely redirected, and that can be undone by any editor.) The present article should be about this book itself, which includes detailed description (which can be sourced from the book itself) and notable comment on it. Notice that, above, with very little effort, I was able to report that I found an entire page of quotations from this book in an "Encyclopedia of Human Development." The book has been noticed in reliable sources. What I don't like about Merge decisions, interpreted as binding, is that the editors of the main article wouldn't have been consulted. What difference does it make, really, if there is one article on the main topic, longer, or two articles, shorter, one being the main topic and the other a subarticle, i.e., specific book description, for a particularly notable publication? This book seems to be, I'm guessing from what little I've seen, the main publication by or about him. ("Not written by him" is an oversimplification. He is the "author" of the words therein, albeit in their original language and verbally. And that is really irrelevant.} No, not "all of them need a separate article." Only those where there is more detail appropriate than is appropriate for a main article, or they, as works, are particularly notable.--Abd (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Allemandtando was an abusive sock puppet of User:Fredrick day, who has at various times (like yesterday) watched my contributions and intervened with reverts or opposite !votes. He has been indef blocked now, this !vote should be disregarded. --Abd (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge Book by itself isn't notable enough, should be merged into Nisargdatta Maharaj. ~ priyanath talk 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this discussion, there have been no reliable sources provided for this article nor any claim to notability. As is, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Ism schism simply repeats, as if it were a new comment, his nomination statement. That's problematic. And there were reliable sources above asserted, arguably showing notability from where the book has been quoted. Participation in this AfD has been low, one Delete !vote was from a sock puppet and possibly not in good faith, and this AfD probably shouldn't be closed as a consensus, unless the matter is very clear to the editor closing. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over a week of discussion, and there are no agreed upon reliable sources for this article. Most articles need at least 2 reliable sources. It shouldn't take over a week to find them - this is point I was trying to make earlier. I apologise for not being more clear. Personally, I think an article needs 2 reliable sources to back up its claims to notability. It is important to note that these are still lacking after ample time for review. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking from where? My guess is that Ism schism means from the article. They are here, above. Sources showing notability are not necessarily appropriate for the article for other reasons. If there are unsourced claims in the article, those should be removed. Sometimes a topic is notable but the reliable sources that show it don't back up specific facts in the article; in that case, such sources may be mentioned in an AfD or in article Talk. I also have a general policy of not working on articles that are under AfD, I should probably resign from Article Rescue. Too many times I've done the work and actually found reliable source, and the article still disappears because there had already been many Delete votes, the closer didn't look at the new sources and it was still marginal and not worth going to DRV, etc., etc. But, here, if this closes as Delete, I'd consider DRV, because it appears that this is, indeed, a notable book.

Comment Other users have been noticing that Ism schism (talk · contribs)'s bizarrely zealous deletion drive, of which this afd is a part, has a distinctly sectarian bent. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please - be specific if you are making an accusation against me. I have nominated non notable articles for every sect of Hinduism since I started. This is well documented in my edit history, my documentation on the Hinduism Wikiproject talk page, and other relevant talk pages. Yes, an article you wrote was one of the articles I nominated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitsu Hadeishi. It is these types of articles that I believe should NOT be on Wikipedia. I am not attacking you as an author, just the non notable articles. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the possible pattern, and it is a matter of concern, but is not really relevant to the AfD itself. If an editor is abusively nominating, and that is clear, the editor could be sanctioned, but this isn't the place to discuss that. Talk, here, would be okay, but.... better if the editors try to work it out directly, then ask for help if they can't find consensus in that way. There is mediation and user conduct RfC and the whole nine yards of WP:DR. Please, both of you, take this elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the subject of this discussion should be the article - and whether it is notable and has reliable sources for verification. Personal attacks against me can be taken to other forums. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I had to be reborn as an American I would choose the state of Missouri as their state slogan is "Show-Me!" This is my expectation for articles. Please, show me how the article is notable and then give me reliable sources to verify this claim to notability. Upon review, I see that there are sources that mention this subject, but none have been shown to give the subject substancial coverage and/or coverage to demonstrate and verify notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I want to save an article from deletion for whatever reason, I make changes, add sources, show notability, and then use this AfD space to call attention to the improvements so that other editors might change their opinions. I've had more success that way that I have engaging in intense debate. Tackle articles, not editors. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable book article, and Merge the contents into the article of the notable author (Nisargadatta Maharaj). Outside the context of the author, his teachings (hence this book) are meaningless to general readers.Yobmod (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, there is no indication of whether this book is widely read, influential, or important. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- zero evidence the book is notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 22 July 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 with Navnath into a single article, incorporating some of the sources listed at this AfD. From reading the articles, Navnath seems the appropriate target, but I encourage experts in the topic to assist with this. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navnath Sampradaya[edit]

Non notable, original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This one boils down to whether the sources (which are plentiful and obviously third-party for the most part) can be considered reliable. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Navnath. Reliable sources available: [39].--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my opinion is not enough reliable third party sources. Lillycottage (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Navnath. per Redtigerxyz. Some highly reliable sources.John Z (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete into Navnath as per above. No such thing outside of the subject of Navnath. Wikidās ॐ 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merging with all the other related articles up for deletion. ~ priyanath talk 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other related articles. Shobhit102 | talk 12:15, 15 July 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, merging Navnath Sampradaya into this one. This title seems to be the logical target for the merged article, but I encourge experts in the topic to assist with this. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navnath[edit]

Non notable, original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Navnath Sampradaya. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as list or Merge with Navnath Sampradaya. See mention here. [40]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Navnath Sampradaya, per Blanchardb and Redtigerxyz. Note that there are as usual, alternate English versions, "Nao Nath" or "Navanatha" cf this SUNY Press book, an RS for these articles of course; the alternate spellings yielding many more RS's from google books.John Z (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Navnath Sampradaya, assuming reliable sources. ~ priyanath talk 03:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other related articles. Shobhit102 | talk 12:18, 15 July 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. Shereth 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Madhavnath Maharaj[edit]

Non notable, original research with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Wikidās ॐ 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsurprisingly, your Google seaches are so restrictive as to actually be deceptive. Why would you search on a string which excludes other transliterations of 'Shri'? Here's a real Google Books search. Google Scholar. Google Web. — goethean ॐ 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am afraid that one mention of Madhavnath in the list of not notable persons without any clue as to notability is just not what is described in WP:NOTABILITY. May be you should read up on it to understand what it means. This one is clear case. Wikidās ॐ 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Navnath Sampradaya, assuming reliable sources. ~ priyanath talk 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After 5 days of discussion in this Afd, there are still no reasons to believe this subject to be notable. There are no reliable sources to establish notability. Also, the article might be original research. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending further research, which depends on there being time available to do so, and per Goethean. There are two sources in the ref section in the article, one apparently a biography. It is a great deal easier and quicker to nominate an article for AfD (especially without research, or disregarding the presence of multiple substantial reliable sources in the article or easily available elsewhere) than to research one, with all the possible spelling variants in this particular area. It is easier to destroy than to build. It is thus easier to overwhelm Wikipedia's and individual editors' capacity to cope within an artificial time frame if articles are nominated without restraint and sufficient reason.John Z (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Your reason above for voting keep was, "pending further research, which depends on there being time available to do so." As this debate has been listed for over 10 days, this can be interpreted as ample time for research. At this point, do you have anything to share as far as claims to notability and reliable sources to verify these claims? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply As I said, there are two references in the article already. They're hard to check. The reliable, easily accessible stuff online on Madhavnath is in relation Sai Baba This refers to Madhavnath as a "well known saint." The ref Nathasampradaya, uday va vistaar by Dr. Prahlad Narhar Joshi is not online, but seems to be cited in scholarly work - see some hits here [41] and Joshi seems to be a reasonable expert[42], unfortunately the rest of the entry is on a restricted page. According to some previews of things citing Joshi, it seems to have material on a few dozen Hindu saints, like this subject. Haven't been able to come up with anything on the other reference, which seems to be a biography; I've contacted the article creator, AKapadi, who probably has these references, and could explain how they are used.John Z (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No clear consensus to delete, and added sources appear reliable and non-trivial.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DesktopTwo[edit]

Article is about software/webware that fails notability guildlines.

Delete - It is more an advertisement or spam and is not encyclopedic. I believe it was up for speedy a while ago and it is still an advertisement and so brought here to AfD Pmedema (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the deletion recommendation for this article should be removed.

Desktoptwo has a Google page rank of 6. Presumably Google's page rank algorithm considers, among other things, the number of mentions a page has on the Web plus the number of times users click on search result pages where the corresponding URL appears. Just by this reason it appears that Desktoptwo's relevance is difficult to challenge.

Also, there are countless examples of Wikipedia articles that refer to Web sites or other software products where Google's page rank is under 6 (see article for blip.tv with page rank zero). There also articles about other Web sites in Desktoptwo's space that have the same page rank as Desktoptwo but that are not being submitted for deletion. (see article entry for G.ho.st which also has a page rank of 6).

Finally, the Web as a platform is the most relevant shift in IT of the last few years. Desktoptwo is one of the most important proponents of such model. It'd be unwise, to say the least, to delete from the Wikipedia an article about a Web product that directly challenges the IT establishment by proposing the usage of the Web as a computing platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.206.254 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article also fails WP:RS and your "near future" comment fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Pmedema (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable sources in the article.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have been provided in the article to comply with WP:RS. Those references also support the relevance of the article's object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.206.254 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that subject does not meet WP:MUSIC and the article does not meet WP:V.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Jones[edit]

Bringing this here as there is a disputed prod in the history. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that she meets WP:MUSIC but only if we could verify the facts mentioned in the article (which I see was the problem that caused the prod). I would like to see references that verify some of the info mentioned in the article. If not then I feel it's problem is WP:V I tried to look but couldn't find anything to suggest that she worked with the artists listed on search engines or UBL, but it was a long time ago so there is a possibility that she meets the notability standard. I still think that the article needs to meet verifiability though. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establiosh notability, and touring as a backup singer isn't sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 15 July 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. An overblown discussion at times, but consensus is that she's notable, particularly for her work with the band Rasputina.--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melora Creager[edit]

non notable musician with questionably notable albums, would require serious work to meet wp:n and i don't think the sources are out there Myheartinchile (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if sourced. I count two albums on Columbia Records which is without a doubt a notable label. (P.S. If you were going to nominate the artist for deletion, why not the albums too?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Several production credits that I see, but few to no reliable sources (blank Allmusic entry, for one). I didn't realize that the albums listed were ones that she produced, not ones that she recorded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question are producers of multiple notable albums notable?Myheartinchile (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Are you serious? Let's put aside for a minute the fact that she was a live member of Nirvana and Belle and Sebastian; let's forget that the band she founded, Rasputina, are notable beyond doubt in their own right; and let's ignore the fact that notability for band members is inherited. A five-second Google News search for the subject of this article yields no fewer than 117 mentions. Now who wants to bet that at least one of those has non-trivial coverage of our subject? I do. The nominator clearly did not bother to research whether there was coverage of the topic in sources, nor read our notability guidelines for music. No stars. Skomorokh 10:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep I do not know what article the nominator and Ten Pound Hammers have been looking at but it does not appear to be the same one that I'm looking at. This article is not about a producer. It is about a member of a well-known group who has demonstrated some notability outside of that group by recording a solo album, appearing in a short film and performing with Nirvana. Contrary to what was asserted above, all the albums listed include the subject as a performer. --Bardin (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - comment-NOT i repeat NOT a member of Nirvana, she was a backround musician hired by them on a short term basis. She doesn't get royalties, didn't get awards, doesn't appear as a band member on the bands website. So that is just plain false. Please be my guest though and add in any information into the article to make it notable as you claim it is. But if its not worth you time its not worth saving this lackluster entry, and even at that she is not of note.^MY♥_INchile 07:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I said she was a member of Nirvana? --Bardin (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe someone stated that, yes.^MY♥_INchile 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me. --Bardin (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough Some of the pages on wikipedia have less than two lines of information with no links or anything. There is plenty of information here on Melora and she's the lead singer of a very well known band. Anyone who knows Rasputina, knows Merlora Creager. She is a more than notable artist with an easily recognised voice and style. When someone comes looking for information on her they should be able to find it on Wikipedia and as I previously mentioned, there is plenty of information on her here. I don't even know why this page is up for deletion, there's enough info, she's well known, she's a solo artist as well as the founding member of Rasputina. Why is this even being discussed, I'm in Australia and me and a number of my friends have heard of her, she must be somewhat well known now musn't she? She's seen in music videos and you can get posters of her in magazines, she's well known, deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.72.142 (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve Melora Creager is absolutely an "important enough" (if we must use those words) person to merit the article, but it really needs cleanup. It reads like a "good effort" grade seven essay on a musician of your choice. There are plenty of references available; the Rasputina web site is an obvious one. There are also great interviews in print and on YouTube, etc., and Creager really does talk about anything so a lot of what's already there could be cited. I'm trying but aside from adding text or correcting spelling mistakes, I don't actually know HOW to do this. Working on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.205.231 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 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) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Goldston[edit]

non notable cello player who's only claim to fame is playing on tour with nirvana years ago, once sentence stub with no opportunity to really expand, also not referenced at all. Myheartinchile (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artist hasn't been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tired of one sentence articles, if this is all her accomplishment put it in the Nirvana page.PB666 ^yap 03:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:20, 12 July 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 due to evidence of third party reliable sources which satisfy WP:V, and therefore WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Japan War Online[edit]

Article appear to lack notability, all Google references come to articles commenting on that the game is supposedly being created. Appears to be vaporware. PCPP (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've discovered a Chinese website [43] supposedly carrying the game, but can't find any verifications in English--PCPP (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Lacks notability. MuZemike (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a weak delete per comment below. We should give those who can read/speak Chinese (if there are any out there pertaining to this article) a chance. MuZemike (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My inability to read or speak Chinese, as well as my lack of knowledge of the country and its popular culture makes me unable, I believe, to cast a meaningful vote on this one. I have listed it at the China-related discussions, hoping that it will attract informed opinion. Dekkappai (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gamespot carried the story[44] as did Xinhua [45], which shows it at least has official coverage in China. What's actually lacking is in-depth reviews of the game in English, which is understandable since it isn't available in any English-speaking country. This, as with many other exclusive Chinese video games, raises the question of whether something has to be verifiable in English in order to meet policy on the English wiki. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:V, sources in English are preferred but not required. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources provided by Ham. Everyking (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 00:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable game which barely passes WP:V. --Pmedema (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - although there are references that prove this once existed, the lack of coverage since 2005 suggests nothing came of it - i.e., it became vaporware. If anyone can find a reference from a more recent source, or one that shows the game was actually released, I'll reconsider; but as it is it appears to be a game that was announced but never finished, which doesn't really merit our attention. Terraxos (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you visit the Babel Fish translation of the page[46] you'll see that it describes the 2008 download client for the game. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I just did a Babel Fish translation of the website above [47]. While I know the votes for delete are in good faith, its very clear here that this game exists its just all the sources are in chinese. We don't delete articles because we haven't found sources, we delete articles because there is no chance of finding sources. Clearly, this game exists and has previously been covered. The title also appears to be: Sino-Japanese War Online. Checking out their forums, it would appear this is a very popular topic. Come on guys, Using Yahoo Babel Fish translation took me thirty seconds... Icemotoboy (talk) 00:41, 16 July 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of hard rock musicians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated in April. Passed per WP:CLN, i.e. a list may be developed further than a category. However, since then, no changes have been made except new bare list entries. A quick glance reveals REO Speedwagon and Therapy?, definitively not hard rock bands. Category:hard rock groups is appropriate in part because the auto-link from each article (or conspicuous lack thereof) helps filter and develop the proper list. Here however we see a tendency to wp:listcruft with little prospect and no progress of comprehensively adding cross-reference information, blurbs, or such.

Article may be recreated without prejudice after deletion by copying category contents. So long as intent is to add value. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a manageable list with a direct lead criteria. Open expand. If this is nominated then every single list found at Category:Lists of musicians by genre should be nominated for the same reasons. Most them have already been AfD'd at least once and all are still here for several reasons... it's manageable, it's expandable, many key/important hard rock acts are missing the category in the category list, which means not only is the list an easier refernce to review - it's a more accurate reference as well. Libs (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead criterion references hard rock, which says this:
Hard rock is a variation of rock music which has its earliest roots in mid-1960s garage and psychedelic rock. It is typified by a heavy use of distorted electric guitars, bass guitar, keyboards and drums. The term "hard rock" is often used as an umbrella term for genres such as Alternative, Grunge, heavy metal and Punk in order to distinguish them from pop rock.
The problem is that this includes nearly all rock that isn't "pop" and then some that is: distorted guitar is mighty popular. Meanwhile musicians are virtually guaranteed to fall into another list, such as List of heavy metal bands—an exemplary list. Are there some bands best typified as hard rock? Sure... Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult. Do Boston and David Bowie also belong? Well, technically. But tell a record store clerk you like hard rock such as Pat Benatar, and the guitar distortion will be curtailed. And don't get me started on Bijelo Dugme.
Also, many of the Category:Lists of musicians by genre (ie, all of the half dozen I just randomly clicked) are substantially improved or contain redlinks, so I disagree with equating this one to the rest. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As previously mentioned. There is no reason to delete this article unless we go ahead and delete every "List of X bands" article on Wikipedia. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also as mentioned, nearly all the others are superior to this one. There is no slippery slope. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that the previous AFD was only closed on April 30, so it's too soon to renominate. 23skidoo (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, edit history shows over 100 edits since then. Article development isn't stalled, it's flawed. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is correct that this lazy list does nothing that a category doesn't do already. It's nothing more than a list of articles on Wikipedia, which is already accomplished by a category, so I see no reason to say keep. However, the advantage is that this would be easier to find than a category would be, due to a flaw in Wikipedia's search engine, so I won't urge a delete. If a search ever leads directly to a category-- i.e., we type in "hard rock musicians" and it leads to "Category:Hard Rock Groups"-- then complacent lists like this would be the first casualty. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock/Deletions.Potatoswatter (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request that discussion be extended, since only three opinions so far, mainly being "otherstuff." Potatoswatter (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that there is an element of otherstuff here, and that the question could benefit from further discussion,

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Again I say it's a maintainable list. Not enough time following last afd. Libs (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Potatoswatter (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at the first AFD. There is no valid reason to delete this article. The nominator might not see any prospects of this article being improved but that's merely impatience. --Bardin (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two solid reasons to delete. One is that improving this article would necessitate starting from scratch because of the existing cruft. A better way to form this list would be to copy from categories such as Category:American alternative rock music groups. (Does anyone there not belong here? Is that list 100% consistently hard rock?) So this list as-is does not contribute to a potential improved list.
The second reason is that it's not maintainable. For almost fifty years hard rock has been the "music of the people" in much of the world due to cheap production/performance requirements and overall popularity. The scope of this list is such that it needs to be broken into smaller, categorized lists, which as it happens has already been done and those lists are already in the improvement stage. Now, a list of hard rock genres would be nice, and could easily be condensed from hard rock. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:51, 17 July 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.

- Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 18 July 2008 (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.

The result was keep, request was withdrawn, the copyright violation could be removed without deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amphoe Mae Chaem[edit]

Deletion request for edit after this. The edit includes text from here p.216. Anan 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Question why delete? is this a copyright issue? Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. It must be a copyright violation.--Anan 11:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anan (talk • contribs)

thanks, 2^nd Question, I'm not familiar with the proceedure, but must all the article be deleted if a portion that was added later is under copyright? This seems draconian, Would it not be simpler to delete the offending paragraph? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in fact I am from Jawiki and so not familiar with the proceedure here too. But It seems the all versions after problematic edit are polluted by cut and paste from the copyrighted material. So I just simply thought the all versions should be deleted. However if it is not the way in enwiki, I have to think better of this request.--Anan 11:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I found this at Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored.". You should also make a note on the talk page of the copiright, that you deleted the offending text, where the text came from. etc. yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind instruction. I didn't know that rule. It makes me feel Enwiki is far from Jawiki. Anyway, I will cancel this request.--Anan (talk) 12:07, 12 July 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. I recommend considering to merge it to Obama family, if that survives AfD. Sandstein 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Soetoro-Ng[edit]

This person is clearly non-notable. Being related to a famous person and the media being aware of her existence does not make for a notable entry on wikipedia. She is a mere teacher - how many of them are there in the world? Are we to have an article for all of them? John Smith's (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to an article on Barrack Obama/the Obama family. John Smith's (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You meant to type "merge with Maya's mother's article," I presume.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 16:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified - thanks. John Smith's (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to LotLE So what? Lots of people get quoted in the press who don't have articles on wikipedia. John Smith's (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable other than by being related to a famous person. May just possibly merit a namecheck in Obama's article re her campaigning for him, but even that's stretching it. --Ka renjc 20:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - clearly meets notability concerns under WP:BIO. Many significant mentions in reliable sources. Hundreds of recent news articles.[48] She is the sister of a presidential candidate and, as such, extremely important. We're not making that judgment - the reliable sources are. She's also active in the campaign. There is an effort to delete articles about Obama's family members the nominator describes as the work of the Obama "fan club".[49][50][51] Approaching articles with that suspicion, and believing their creators are motivated by a partisan WP:POV rather than assuming they are the efforts o well-meaning editors to expand the encyclopedia by writing articles about notable subjects, poses the issue as a POV] one.Wikidemo (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC) this and later comments refactored to turn down heat some - Wikidemo (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is being the sister of a presidential candidate "extremely important"? You are claiming these nominations are POV yet I see no justification of the statement I quoted you on. I think the only POV is coming from those who are trying to keep these articles. John Smith's (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It puts her in close proximity, affiliation, trust, etc., with someone who either will be, or will come close to being, the most powerful person on earth. Of all the Obama siblings - some more distant or estranged - his sister is the one who has worked most closely with him on the campaign. That is probably why the world takes note of her, but whatever my hunch is as to why people are interested it is clear that they take note as evidenced by hundreds of recent news articles about her. Wikidemo (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please do not lie.~~ I have never said that I am going around deleting contributions of people who might like Obama. I expressed my feeling that certain people are too enthused about him and creating articles that should not be. ~~And as I wrote on the other afd, you are lumping me together with everyone who actively dislikes Obama just because I have a used a term you say they do.~~ I am, if you had bothered to look at my profile, not American and generally not interested in Obama's article on the project. ~~Assume good faith if you wish to have it from others.~~

Being in a position of trust is irrelevant. If she makes a name for herself in presidential work after/if Obama is elected, ok depending on the detail that might make an article on her justified. But not until - he is still facing an election and simply working on a candidate's campaign isn't enough. Making subjective and vague comments like "his sister is the one who has worked most closely with him on the campaign" is not helpful to deciding what to do with the article. John Smith's (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike some other relatives of Sen. Obama, Soetoro-Ng has had numerous independent statements quoted in the press. LotLE×talk 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Keep. Re-nominate for merge/delete if Barack loses election. Fact is, being immediate family of the US President is notable. Would Laura Bush have an article, never mind the huge article she currently has, if she had never married GWB? Notability isn't a matter of whether someone is notable "on his or her own merits"; some people are notable by virtue by birth, as here.Bdell555 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, why do people keep using the spouse example to justify other relatives? This person is not Obama's wife. Being wife of the president gains actual status - they are given a title. Other relatives are not given status. The "first family" extends to the president, spouse and children only. John Smith's (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a counter-example to the claim that one's notability cannot arise from the circumstances of family relationships. You can propose a standard that an official or common title or position based on kinship makes the kin notable. But that's just an observation or a proposed criterion, not something set in stone. Policy and guideline say nothing about how notability might arise - it just gives a presumptive test based on coverage in reliable sources. Being attacked by, dated with, having a child with, impugned by, best friends with, a child or parent of, etc., a famous person could, depending on the circumstances, result in people taking note of a person's life. Then we have to decide, if various sources thought it was important enough to cover, do we feel it is too? Wikidemo (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep----the same I happen to feel re any RfDs for O's paternal half-siblings: eg Malik. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:44, 15 July 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, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. Obama family is arguably the target agreeable to most participants. Someone seems to have copied the content there already. Sandstein 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Obama[edit]

Another non-notable Obama relative. Just because someone is related to him and the media is aware of them does not mean we need an article on them - this person clearly fails notability. I'm surprised the article hasn't been nominated yet. John Smith's (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Saberwyn. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Family and personal life section of the Barrack Obama article.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually the article has been nominated for deletion before. Julius Sahara (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The result of the Sarah Onyango Obama nomination was a keep, but the content appears to have been merged and redirected to Barack Obama, Sr.. Suggest a similar merge and redirect. -- saberwyn 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - For consistency with the results of the Malik Obama AfD[52] we should round up the various articles about Obama's Kenyan relatives and in-laws, and organize them in a single article. Some of these are clearly worth covering in the encyclopedia. We can't gloss over the fact that Obama's family is from Kenya and that he has relatives there. Some may rise to the level of notability on their own; others in a group article. The main Obama article is clearly not the place to store all this information, nor is an AfD process the best way to decide which article to use as the target of a marge. Wikidemo (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemo, I think your attitude in this is rather POV yourself. Surely there should not be an Obama fan-club on this project. You seem to think it is justified to oppose this deletion/merger on those grounds. I challenge you to state how having relatives in a foreign country requires separate articles on them. John Smith's (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to disparage editors ~~who you disagree with~~ by calling them "Obama fans". If you look at some of the history of the Barack Obama article several editors coined epithets like "Obama fanboys", "Obama campaign volunteers", and "Obama campaign workers" to taunt people who opposed their attempts to insert negative material about Obama into the article. On the substance "requires" is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia, it's notability. Notability is presumed from the fact that the articles you are nominating clearly meet the WP:BIO guideline by virtue of multiple mentions in independent reliable sources. Thus it's up to you to argue why the subjects aren't notable despite meeting the criteria, or why even though notable they don't deserve their own articles. Wikidemo (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikidemo, I believe that you could do with reading those articles yourself.~~ I have not made any personal comments here or otherwise directed to individuals. I have no interest in Obama and criticism of - do not lump me together with those who do just because I made a joke about people writing articles up on his family members when really they are not suitable for the project. ~~That is in of itself not assuming good faith - practice what you preach, please.~~

As for notability, per the recently closed Afd on Malik Abongo Obama clearly it has been successfully argued that notability inherited through one's relationship to another is not notability in of itself. You may disagree but I think that this is quite a clear-cut case. I think a re-direct merger is best because that way it will stop new articles being created. John Smith's (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to repeat this entire discussion four places - two AfDs and our respective talk pages. It may have been inadvertent on your part, with some humorous component, but as soon as you start talking about people being "Obama fans" you're casting the whole thing in POV terms which, as I said, has been a big problem on the Obama pages. It's best if we just acknowledge that and move on - I'll accept you didn't mean to be there. We both agree that the material from this particular article can be safely merged for now into some other, so there's not a whole lot of point debating the specifics. However, the other AfD does not establish the kind of precedent you propose. There is considerable dispute that the "notability is not inherited essay" means what you say it does, and the closing administrator on the other article made clear it was not deemed a "merge" for that reason. It would be a shame to repeat the entire debate from last time, but clearly people are notable via their relationship to their family members. Otherwise, as I pointed out there, we would have no articles on British royalty, for example, or spouses of famous people, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty is different, because people are notable in part because of their titles and public engagements. Also being related to a monarch is important as they have a place in line to the throne. That said I would not support articles on every minor royal relative. On the other hand Obama's relatives would not become president if he died having won the election and taken office, nor do they have a title - so the two are not comparable. Obama's wife is different because she would become the first lady and has a very high profile, such that people debate whether she is an asset or a hindrance to Obama's campaign. John Smith's (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (apropos above) - It looks like a snowball merge at this point. We don't need to go through a time-consuming AfD process to do a merge, just consensus. I suggest we wait another day to see if there is any opposition and, if not, be bold and just do the merge. If anyone objects at that point they can always revert or object and we can discuss further... In addition, although each Obama family member is different (ranging from his wife Michelle Obama being the most notable to nth cousin Dick Cheney and rumored distant Welch ancestors being remote, I think it might be most productive to centralize the discussion rather than having ad hoc AfD nominations one at a time. Perhaps gestate all new material for any family members on a central page, and spin them off as articles only if and when people feel they're ready. Wikidemo (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As with Malik, I see a list of random well sourced facts. I do not see a reason for notability. There should not be difficulty in creating a discussion simmilar to the one about Malik. Black ngold29 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Obama family - as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. She is not notable on her own --T-rex 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy merge into Obama family. I wish there could be some bot blocking the mushrooming of relatives-of-Barack-Obama-articles. --Soman (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep ~~Keep~~ i have heard her mentioned on the news more than once which would establish notability, however if there isn't enough content for a standalone article lets merge it somewhere else for the meantime.^MY♥_INchile 06:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this goes back to the points raised in the previous afd discussion. Does being discussed in the media because you're someone's relative constitute notability? Or does it have to be something that the individual has done/knows/etc that is independent of that? My understanding is that it is the latter, not the former. John Smith's (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument and it is compelling, however the argument you propose is a fallacy due to the fact you change the terms for notability due to original research and personal opinion, notability is established by the notability guidelines, and this individual has met these, whether or not you approve of the attention she has gotten, the fact of the matter is, is that it is wholly irrelevant that you have contempt for fact that Sarah Obama has received attention you feel is not merited. Therefore i change my opinion to strong keep.^MY♥_INchile 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a false dichotomy (I mean that in a rhetorical sense, not to accuse anyone of being false). The threshold question is whether the media discusses a thing, not why the media does so. If the media wants to devote article after article about how someone wakes up in the morning, brushes her teeth, goes for a walk, and tends to her baby, that's evidence the person is notable. The parallel substantive question, whether we think the person is worth noting, can be for most any reason. We don't necessarily have a standard that the person must have achieved great things before we will write about them. There is no policy or guideline, so far as I know, that says that relatives of important people are disqualified in this way. The previous AfD didn't answer that question, it just observed that there was a toss-up for opinions on that article that can't be decided, but that everyone seems to agree that merger is okay. It is up or us to decide whether to cover them or not. Wikidemo (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Scanlan (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take me long to find several news articles from reputable sources (USAToday, BBC, The Nation, AllAfrica.com, The Guardian) all of which have Sarah Obama as either the main subject of the article or as an important part of it. This helps to establish notability. As the election approaches (it's still several months away), more will no doubt be published on her as the media attention grows. I would add this info from these articles myself, but I have a term paper due this month. Again, please keep this article. Scanlan (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep----the same way I'd "vote" re maternal grandparents Madelyn and Stanley Dunham (except no one's retagged them yet, for some reason). $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:33, 15 July 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 unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Davies[edit]

I can find no evidence that Eileen Davies existed. I can find no evidence that her album "Down the Drain" existed. Ogg (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Sorry, I couldn't find any info either.--LAA Fan 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets some criteria for A7 (non-notable person, people), if she does exist, she has no public records. WikiZorro^sign 18:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply fails WP:V and therefore fails WP:BIO --Pmedema (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't give out articles for anyone, including people with pathetic short lived careers and lives, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO and WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Furthermore since she did not achieve anything in her lousy life, well she's not going to now, is she? Sad story but possibly even a hoax, not a single source in there is there? Speedy delete it all ready. No point in relisting was there?^MY♥_INchile 06:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion (CSD A7) does not apply, as an assertion of notability has been made, regardless of how minor it may be. Please note that WP:CIVILITY does apply, even when your comments are not directed toward a specific Wikipedian. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wasn't asking for a CSD A7 was encouraging an expedient deletion. as for what incivility, i was simply describing the article content in accurate terms.^MY♥_INchile 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that confusion would arise if you used the term "speedy deletion" not to describe the Wikipedia process for immediate deletion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:42, 16 July 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.