Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 4 June 6 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Dorset[edit]

Flag of Dorset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a proper article for inclusion in an encyclopedia, being a news story about a competition for a flag for Dorset. The person who first submitted the article was promoting his design for a flag for Dorset and created a smokescreen of his intention by including an existing Dorset County Council flag and commentary about an historic figure in Dorset - St Wite. Until the competition is over and a design agreed, there is no need on Wikipedia for this blog.Dorsetpatriot (talk)

What you say is unproven and untrue. When this article was created, there was a commercial flag in circulation - a banner of the arms of Dorset County Council and an independent campaign- ours. That was it. Two unofficial flags in circulation and this page reflected that. Since then, the county council have blundered their way into the whole thing(as of April 23rd 2008). Commentary about St Wite is valid - as we believe our flag could be named after her and until recently - was. Whether it is a contender or not, it is a high profile alternate unofficial flag of Dorset - it is being used by the people of Dorset as a flag of Dorset. White43 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see some of the comments disagreeing with me (here and on the discussion page) have widely missed the point. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia and not a newsletter or blog. The article has been greatly toned down since its original entry but I still hold it has no value in this location. It is promotional of a single design in a competition to be the official flag of Dorset. The other counties mentioned in the discussions have passed the deliberation stage and can rightfully be included - they are now historical fact. This flag, firstly St Wite's flag then renamed the Dorset Cross is a matter of the creator's opinion. I will have no objection to an entry once the deliberations are over and a flag chosen. Otherwise, all flags entered to be the official flag should have their own entry in Wikipedia - clearly a nonsense. Mr White calls the banner of the arms of Dorset County Council an unofficial flag. This is misleading in his context. The banner exists and is recognised - as the banner of Dorset County Council. It is not anything other than that, but as it exists officially, it can be mentioned appropriately on Wikipedia. To make an analogy, where is the page on David Cameron, the Prime Minister?Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but this flag is on sale and being used in exactly the same way as the armorial banner of Dorset County Council. If people are using it as a Dorset flag, then it is a little different to the other paper entries is it not? Also, didn't it exist before the contest? Wasn't it in circulation before? There are people selling clocks on Ebay with the image on! This flag exists whether unofficially or not and is commercially available - it deserves some recognition due to the fact it got this 'contest' going..87.127.178.28 (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wikipedia for informing me about this flag – having seen it flying I did wonder what it might be and a scan across the list of English flags enlightened me. I am now somewhat dismayed to find a move to delete this article. This strikes me as peculiar and ill-considered, such items do not get encyclopaedic reference elsewhere and this sort of account is precisely Wikipedia’s strength. Further research indicates to me that this flag is by far the leading contender in the current search for a county flag, it has received notable support both in the media and popularly but what is more, it is flying and is therefore a noteworthy event – removing this article would be an irresponsible action by this resource. I note that flags of many irredentist groups and pseudo-states feature in Wikipedia’s pages, they are there as a matter of record, they are in the public domain and appear in Wikipedia for people to refer to –this is exactly the same. The article does not state that this is the county flag but relates that it seeks to be – just as David Cameron seeks to be Prime Minister. When the other competition entries begin to fly I would expect to see them appear in these pages too but for the time being please do not excise information about the one that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexilo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People coming to the page currently will be unaware of how the entry started off - as a promotional marketing exercise for the St Wite's flag (now renamed the Dorset Cross). Why I ask for deletion is that soon we may have a genuine flag of Dorset (and yes, it may even be this design) and that the Wikipedia entry could then be unbiased, factual and not-self-serving - as an encyclopedia entry should be. I used to put corrections into the page to show what the situation was - a competition running/ many entries/ non-selected - and I toned down the entry about the Chair of the County Council as it was impolite. However, each time, my edits were edited, leaving me to make a decision to nominate the page for deletion. It can return as mentioned, when it is appropriate.Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your edits were that they made many 'weasel' statements like 'people say' or 'people have said' without backing it up. The page is supposed to be factual, not about peoples opinions either. Your edits weren't well placed either and felt 'tacked on'. Your assertion that this page was primarily a marketing exercise for the Dorset Cross are also unfounded - that is purely your opinion. You should have discussed why your edits were reverted on the page's discussion page, rather than nominating for deletion. This amounts to you not getting your own way and deleting the page - not very Wikipedian of you. It doesn't matter how the page started off, we're dealing with the current content now. I suggest you cancel your vote to delete and get to the discussion page and offer like SpeedyMcG a solution to the page, perhaps bullet-points of what should and should not be included?
Also, just a small thing, but can you properly sign your username by clicking on the appropriate button? 87.127.178.28 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need to back the statements up - following the links already in existence on the webpage to the newspaper forums, these comments can be found. If there is an audit trail from the original insertion to the current one, all my points can be proven by reading the pages in chronological order. Wikipedia does not exist for free marketing. In newspapers, items that look like news entries but are marketing have notices of "Advertisement Feature" so that the reader is not mislead. However, I may have been overzealous about the need for openness and factual reporting - it appears only 3 of us are looking at this entry. Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do need to back the statements up, Wiki has policy on Weasel statements. It's no good to say - follow the links to find what people say, you must reference. Besides, again, it's opinion, just deal with the bare facts. Stop repeating yourself and do something other than bang on about advertising. You aren't being particularly constructive, rather destructive. Now I believe Speedy McG has offered to re-edit the page to this extent, now if you agree with that fine. If not, then please give a further explanation as to why not. That's at least two of us who say no to deleting that page, which outvotes yourself. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took a long time to get here but for the first time, the page is what it should have been at the start. Provided there is no reversion to the earlier style, I remove my request for deletion. Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as crystal ball. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Einstein[edit]

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

Particularly as the status of the album can't even be confirmed, I believe this should be deleted as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL Nazgul533 talk contribs 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyopengl[edit]

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

Non-notable software. There isn't a speedy deletion criterion for software. Corvus cornixtalk 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as uninformative spam. WillOakland (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Brief one-line description that provides no evidence of notability. TN‑X-Man 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - a combination of db-spam and db-nocontext. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Tabor (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charismatic sound[edit]

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

Synthesis of sounds heard by characters in various religious texts. Googling "Charismatic sound" produces mostly album reviews in which artists' sounds are described as charismatic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the major "source" for this article, greatwesternvehicle.org, is not only not a reliable source but seems to have some affiliation with the article's author, given that almost all of his edits in all articles are sourced to this site (he also created the now deleted Great Western Vehicle. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Even greatwesternvehicle.org does not directly mention the subject. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice for recreation if someone can find some real sources that show this to be a genuine thing. Ford MF (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personalized Noise Reduction[edit]

Personalized Noise Reduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The technology is either a subset of Noise reduction or it is subset of Pattern recognition. Its name "Personalized Noise Reduction" should be more global (no "-ized") and should be completely rethought. It's less a technology about reducing noise and more about increasing desired signal focus. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 30 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't even get into spelling. That has no bearing on the subject at hand, and attempting to change the spelling to something "global", whatever that means, could lead to an edit war. Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete term in itself is not notable and the article has little to explain context. Also appears to be a trademark of sonic innovations.[1] --neon white talk 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree it appears to be a trademark. The general concept and associated patentable technologies could easily be inserted into Pattern recognition. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of context, sources (the only one offered doesn't even mention this phrase) and trademark concern above. Tried Google, but it offered no help. Ford MF (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, explicitly without prejudice to another article later on which either asserts significantly more notability, or is the results of major developments relating to the subject. Daniel (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Fradin[edit]

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

Probably fails WP:BIO. Involved with two successful small companies, but should be merged into pages for those companies, if they are notable themselves. - Snouter

  • Comment. There is another Russell Fradin who works as an executive, not to be confused with this one. - Snouter
  • Delete, unless someone can dig up some material on the man himself receiving public focus. - Vianello (talk) 23:04, 30 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:COATRACK, failure to provide any evidence of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wish people would not vote "delete" or "keep" on the basis of what is currently on a page. If you don't know a field, at least google the topic. Lots of lousy pages are improved over time if they are left up. This one made me just curious enough to type :"Russ Fradin" Adify , into google and news google. This guy is clearly attracting real attention as an individual entrepreneur. Unfortunately , I don't know enoughh about this business to write it up. It seems clear that he deserves an article. keep and put up needs improvement. Needs A LOT of improvement.Elan26 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Article can be recreated if and when reliable sources that establish notability are compiled. (Having an immediatist philosophy, my personal opinion is that we absolutely should be judging articles "on the basis of what is currently on the page". Deletion until a proper article can be written is not a big deal.) — Satori Son 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I first voted delete, then keep when I saw there were news sources. I added a few. But honestly, most of the sources more demonstrate the notability of the company mentioned, Adify, than the man himself, who seems notable only in his position as president of the company. No source provided anything resembling biographic detail beyond that. Probably the best course of action would be to create an Adify article and redirect Russ Fradlin to that. I'd create the Adify article myself, but I've no mind for business topics, and after reading six news articles, I still couldn't possibly tell you what exactly Adify was in the business of. Ford MF (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 16:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Joe Esposito[edit]

Diamond Joe Esposito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN & spam, author has been spamming other articles with links to this rogerd (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The spamming behaviour is inappropriate, but I have to say keep for the article on Diamond Joe, despite it's current poor quality. Putting aside the issue of whether his books make him notable or not, I would say he's a notable figure for the role he played in Elvis Presley's life, and there are certainly a bunch of third-party references I can find on the internet. However, I think it would not be inappropriate to consider moving the page, since he is really the namesake of the "real" Diamond Joe. I think this particular page should probably be a DAB page that links to both Diamond Joes.
  • Comment. Incidentally, User:V0taire (the spammer) deleted the AfD template from the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 28 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, --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clearly demonstrated by the sources found by Google Books and Google News, including [2] [3] [4] [5]. Editor behaviour should be dealt with by discussion, warnings, blocks etc., not by deleting articles on notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Luong[edit]

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

Non-notable poker player with no achievments of note. Notability seems to be derived from being the wife of Prahlad Friedman. As such the article fails WP:BIO. – –Lid(Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

  • Delete fails BIO---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - notable professional sportsman; regularly appears on nationally televised programs in the United States; nom is disruptive as we have well documented articles on many poker players of Luong's stature. Badagnani (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of saying disruptive, please produce at least two articles in reliable sources. She just doesn't meet BIO. being on TV is not a criteria. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disruptive because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I am not trying to be disruptive, and am only attempting to remove ones that fail the notability policy and have in other cases erred on the side of caution. – –Lid(Talk) 05:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Badagnani is the creator of the article. He should familiarize himself with both WP:BIO particularly footnote 8 9 (just changed), which reads "Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc." This footnote was added specifically to deal with these non-notable players. Nor does she meet the interpretation of BIO by by wikiproject poker.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Poker After Dark site. Pretending, or wishing that she were not a regular guest on a syndicated NBC poker television program that has aired every weekday evening for the past year, is not a substitute for actually proving that this individual is not a notable player of this game. Badagnani (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • And Tommy Wang (deleted) made several appearances during Poker Superstars 2, yes she made a single appearance on Poker After Dark but every other player that has appeared on Poker After Dark and has had an article has a pre-existing career or coverage. Ken Light, for example, was on Poker After Dark but we have no article on him because he is simply put a non-notable player. In addition to which claiming she's a "regular guest" is simply false, she appeared in one week. – –Lid(Talk) 06:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also: "is not a substitute for actually proving that this individual is not a notable player of this game." is a negative proof logical fallacy asking us to prove that she isn't notable. The proof needs to exist that she is notable through independent coverage or success, not the other way around. – –Lid(Talk) 07:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The source you provided had me dig deeper... of course, it's not really objective as it is trying to hype the show she is appearing on and it does call her a "rising star." Your contention is that since she appeared on 3 episodes of Poker After Dark. That she is by definition notable. Yet, BIO specifically indicates that poker players are not notable unless they can establish notability through independent sources or have won one of the major tournaments. Now, which is more prestigious, making it to the final table of a WPT event which is aired or paying 20g to participate in a non-notable tv tournament? I think the answer is obvious, making it to the final table of a WPT event which is aired and watched by many more people than Poker After Dark. Yet, WP:BIO, would not recognize a person who makes it to the final table of a WPT event---only the winner of said event. I did do a search on "Dee Luong" Poker on Google and got a few more hits than MrPrada did below... but after looking at 50 of them, I couldn't find any other source that made more than a passing non-notable reference to her.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Making the final table in the 2003 World Series of Poker is scarcely "non-notable," and her career earnings represent about two years worth of a minor-league ballplayer's salary, where appearing in a single game makes that ballplayer notable by default. Mentioning her husband's name is de rigeur when a spouse is notable in his or her own right, but the article does more than that, and I'm curious as to what makes nom think that a fact mentioned a full three months after the article's creation is the reason for its existence.  Ravenswing  03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is precisely non notable to make a final table of a preliminary WSOP event. There will be about 300 500 such people this year alone. It means nothing at all in terms of notability. if it did, we would have about 3000 4000 more poker player articles. (Perhaps you mis read it to think it was meaning the main event of the WSOP in 2003; it does not.) 2005 (talk)
      • What 2005 said, if you wish to see just how many people make final tables at a WSOP in a given year take a look at 2007 World Series of Poker results. This is why note 8 was added to WP:BIO, to prevent excessive additions of any professional poker player for trivial reasons (i.e. made a WSOP final table). Being a pro is not the criteria alone for meeting notability, and it should never be used as such. – –Lid(Talk) 05:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for "I'm curious as to what makes nom think that a fact mentioned a full three months after the article's creation is the reason for its existence" I place on that, in my opinion and WP:BIO, the article shouldn't have existed in the first place and has lasted this long because poker notability is a niche that can cause outside observers to view non-notable achievements to being notable. – –Lid(Talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep per above, a suggestion to the WP:Poker editors, instead of relying on pokerstars.net player bios, you might want to expand to a few other sources (see here, which includes ESPN, Bluff Magazine, Pokernews.com, and Cardplayer.com, all with nontrivial mentions of Luong), that might avert these articles being sent here in the futre. MrPrada (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • C'mon, all of those have very trivial mentions of her. Wiki Poker project editors do know the difference. The completely worthless mention in Google news would never be used to justify an article. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-trivial is "moved in before the flop" "Huck Seed's girlfriend" and "Cyndy Violette is all-in with KK against Dee Luong's JJ"? Really? – –Lid(Talk) 05:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In an effort to establish notability, MrPrada has decided to attack the WP:Poker editors. Mr Prada suggests that the people who edit the poker articles should do more to instead of relying on pokerstars.net player bios, [WP:Poker editors] might want to expand to a few other sources ... that might avert these articles being sent here in the futre. {sic} Er project poker editors have no more control over vanity articles than any other segment of the wikipedia community---unfortunately, there are lot of non-notables who believe that mere participation in a tournament makes them notable. When a person is non-notable, the editors at WP:Poker do not have the power to delete them without coming here. So, MrPrada please explain exactly how people who have never edited the article can be held responsible for failing to include verifiable reliable sources for a player they do not deem to be notable in the first place?? For a person who fails both BIO and the unofficial standards established by wp:POKER. Of course, MrPrada contends that the link he provided to FOUR articles which reference her all with nontrivial mentions of Luong. One of those four sources is an magazine that you have to pay for. The other three sources, quoted the entirety, of the non-trivial references to Luong are:
    • That's it. Period. I would not consider ANY of those citations to be anything but trivial and failing to establish any sort of notable.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is marginal but given the very mistaken notions above, it's important we don't keep an article for obviously incorrect reasons. She doesn't have the coverage as the focus of an article in reliable sources. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. $90K in tournament winnings (i.e. no wins) just doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I concur with Ravenswing. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ridiculous discussion that suits German wikipedia where a lot of people like me have stopped writing articles after articles like "Draw" and "Call" were deleted and a deletion of "Pokerstars" was seriously considered after some dork suspected they want to make money so that's "advertising". Dee Luong is not a great tournament player but she beat Men Ngueyn at heads-up and anyone with a Poker after Dark page is notable [6]

German.Knowitall (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it seems like some of the Germen users made the site donkpedia.net as a reaction to that kind of thing, a great many of the English written articles on poker were by the former admin User:Essexmutant, who quit the project do to some of the same objections which can be read on his resignation letter found on his userpage. Dee Luong should be a known name for anyone who follows poker. at least NBC thought so. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PAD appearance has been brought up before but the line between "having a PAD page" and "being a notable player with sources" do not cross. Your argument that this is similar to the German wikipedias articles on call or draw being deleted is hyperbole and greatly overstates the "importance" of Luong. If the deletion discussion were be about trying to delete Chip Reese or Doyle Brunson then the comparison would be apt. – –Lid(Talk) 22:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, having a bio on a game show does not make her anymore notable than the contestants on Survivor. And most of the contestants on Survivor don't get one---and they are seen by a great many more people than PAD! (It should be noted that game show contestants have routinely been deleted as a matter of practice here because they aren't notable---despite having a bio on their respective game show.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's obvious that her importance isn't as great as Chip Reese or Doyle Brunson, she it still is a notable poker professional. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Chip and Doyle wasn't a comparison to her, it was a comparison to trying to delete a core article on poker like calling: a foolish and impossible move. I wasn't saying "because she isn't as notable as Chip Reese she isn't notable", which would be ridiculous for me to say and assume. – –Lid(Talk) 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dee Luong is a recognized professional poker player and has been for years, her participation on NBC's Poker After Dark wasn't the result of lottery or that of a contest winner such as Ken Light who appeared on the show I would invite people to read her profile place on the Official website for the national broadcast show here, it is true that Dee Luong is more of a cash game professional then a tournament player but she gained notability prior the existed of PAD Competed in the NBC 2006 National Heads-Up Championship again invited on the show as a recognized professional and NOT the result of contest or lottery,[7] now there maybe people who may not care for either of these programs, but the fact is both Poker After Dark and the National Heads-Up Championship are the only two shows on any of the national 3 major broadcasters (e.g. ABC,CBS,NBC) that still air poker related content.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the profile, and it usesthe phrase "up and coming". The problem with this is that that PAD was over a year ago and her notability has not changed, at all. There are many "up and comers" on the poker circuit but they lack articles simply because the notability isn't there (see: nearly every internet pro). This case is no different, especially as the "cash game specialist" just means that she usually plays cash, it doesn't include something like "she crusbes the highest stakes cash games" or even that she beats her own cash games. The notability simply isn't there, just the name that seems to be due to "Huck Seed's girlfriend" and "Prahlad Friedman's" wife. – –Lid(Talk) 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sirex, could you point to what part of BIO she fulfills? Or what part of the Wikiproject Poker guidelines, that you participated on, that she meets?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:04, 5 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting? There has certainly been a thorough discussion, and there obviously is no consensus, with opinions split in half. Close the discussion as no consensus. 2005 (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I asked Fabric about why he relisted it? I think if he doesn't like the idea of closing with no consensus, he should then !vote.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning is here for anyone who is interested.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not satisfying WP:Poker criteria. References above are only trivial mentions and not assertions of notability. Spell4yr (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability well demonstrated by the sources provided above. Ford MF (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have read all of the above and followed the links therein as well as the citations in the article yet still I cannot see how Ms Luong meets either WP:BIO or the unofficial standards established by Wikiproject Poker nancy (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Florida Power blackout[edit]

2008 Florida Power blackout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem especially notable. Lasted under 4 hours, with fairly minimal disruptions (no deaths, fires, lootings). At worst, planes were "backed up" for a little while. Made the local news for a day, as one might expect, but no lasting notability. (As WP:N says - "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability".) It hit 2.5 million people, true, but hey, South Florida's a densely populated place. Baghdad's an even bigger market, and the power's out there all the time, but we don't exactly see a glut of articles on power outages there. Biruitorul Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Florida Power & Light. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, press coverage indicates notability. I tire of seeing the logic that things are not notable because they fail to meet a death and destruction quota. If people are paying attention to this in significant numbers and to a significant degree, it warrants an article regardless of the absence of a death toll or some kind of mayhem. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of coverage? Are you talking about news coverage? There's nothing wrong with citing the news, but I think this one leans a little to much towards Wikipedia is not Wikinews. I'm not saying to delete this completely, I just don't think it warrants its own article; it would find itself right at home as a section in Florida Power & Light. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these types of blackouts are talked about for years. like that one in new york.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NewYork is different. The blackouts their shutdown the entire subway system, causing many to have to travel by foot due to over crowded buses. South Florida is not heavily dependent on public transit. Media coverage is not a direct qualifier of notability. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Power outages are rarely notable. They're sensational for a day or two, and then people forget. Pburka (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per GO-PCHS-NJROTC. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This power outage affected a major tourist attraction and two major airports, along with 2.5 million other people. Even though the outage only lasted 3.5 hours, it may have cost the power company millions of dollars in lost revenue, the same for Disney World and the two airports. Honestly, if millions of dollars are lost in the economy in the already horrible economy, I think this meets WP:N.--DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a delete or keep argument? Losing millions of dollars is hardly notable. If that were the case we'd need an article for every time the DJIA dropped a hundred points. That's billions of dollars lost from the economy and it happens nearly weekly. Pburka (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I made a typo. Its a keep arguement. Sorry. DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:06, 7 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to smack of recentism, and appears to fail WP:NOT#NEWS --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Samuel Pepys and ColorOfSuffering sum it up. Soxred 93 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per GO-PCHS-NJROTC. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a newspaper. There was no lasting, permanent or significant damage or repercussions from this event. Corvus cornixtalk 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at very best Merge to somewhere. Power outage? IN THE NEWS? Clearly news coverage alone is a reason to keep an article - let us make this article a poster boy of that movement. ...Forgettable local news is still forgettable local news even if it happened to affect a few million people. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under what circumstances would you deem this subject notable? If it caused a riot, would that suffice? What if the riot was fairly forgettable, as riots go? Everyking (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear-cut case for WP:NOT#NEWS. If this had happened in, say, Poland in the late 1970s (I was living there at the time and there were major outages almost daily) would we condider having an article about it? Of course not, so let's apply the same standards to Florida in 2008. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as one of only three keep voters in this discussion so far, I can tell you that I am completely in favor of having articles on any blackouts anywhere in the world that got significant press coverage. Everyking (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodheart - Willcox Publishing Company[edit]

Goodheart - Willcox Publishing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Couple reasons for the nomination: 1. The article reads too much like an advert, even after some removal of advert-type content in the history. 2. Not sure that the company satisfies WP:N/WP:CORP. #1 ghit is company webpage, #2 is the article here, #3-5 are related to the company webpage, and the rest I can see appear to be more like passing references. In addition, article is completely orphaned. (If consensus is "keep", would suggest stubbing article back down to bare bones to remove advert content.) umrguy42 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I went through and removed advertisement-style content, obviously skimming down the content to the bone; half the page was contact info, the other main section blatant superlatives excessively describing fuzzy attributes of the products. As for the references, they seem to be alright, satisfying WP:CORP. Arsenikk (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. ¨victor falk 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)[edit]

Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This individual is not notable per WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS, he is not a celebrity, he just has a few videos on you tube, he is not even in the Top 10. No historical context. Transwiki to Wikinews maybe. Also serious WP:OWN issues as it seems he is editing this article about himself. The article is full of bias and original research also. It is way too long and filled with way too much trivia. I say delete this self promotional mess. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep The article has 90 sources, many from major media; what more notability do you need? If an article is too long, has original research, etc. then it needs cleanup, not to be deleted entirely. He's received significant media coverage that it wouldn't make sense to transfer to Wikinews. I'd almost say this should be a speedy close. IRK!Leave me a note or two 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and address the article's WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues separately. I see your point in regards to WP:NOTNEWS, but Crocker is just too prominent in popular culture to be ignored. I do think there is lasting historical value here, in that this is an iconic example of the YouTube phenomenon. When Time magazine named "You" as the PotY, they were talking about phenomena like this. (Speedy Keep is not out of the question here) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, i do believe there is some notability here, but he should be used as an example of the "you tube phenomenon" at YouTube or viral video. You should take into account what a splash Tricia Walsh-Smith made on you tube, but her article has long since been deleted too. 90 sources prove verifiability NOT notability. As for speedy keep, I believe there is a reason this has been listed for deletion twice before, including one without consensus; that fact makes it obvious that many people believe this article should in fact be deleted. I think a merge is possible as a compromise and would meet all the issues you have brought up. his very article title has inherent bias, he is not a celebrity by a longshot as he is not widely known or famous, even on the internet.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, 90 sources provide media coverage AND verafiability. The previous nod for deletion was right after the Britney video and the main issue was whether or not he was notable at that point. That was about nine months ago; he has since received more coverage. I don't even know who Tricia is, but WP:WAX states that just because one was deleted does not mean another should be. And, sorry to sound rude, but a compromise has nothing to do with the deletion criteria for articles (You also may want to see WP:IHATEIT).IRK!Leave me a note or two 22:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and attend to said issues per Jaysweet. It needs work, but the subject does not fail notability, as he has appeared in third-party, published sources and has been referenced in the media several times (and parodied in a couple instances, as well). Crocker is plently notable in YouTube phenomena. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep If it ever applied to any article at all, notability is not temporary absolutely applies here. Article meets WP:NOTE in abundance. The nom brings forth content issues which are innapproriate for AfD. This article needs cleanup, but is not WP:HOPELESS. Jim Miller (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment the sources are largely from you tube and odd news items that mention him in passing. what are those third party sources, point them out please.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply Here goes: from the current version of the page, and only of the ones in English, the ones that meet WP:RS and establish notability would be ref #'s 5, 8, 10, 12, 17, 21, 22, and 76. Multiple non-trivial mentions, and that jewelry fraud thing precludes WP:BLP1E from consideration. Jim Miller (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SNOW; like it or not, this guy is notable (with reliable secondary sources) and a celebrity in his own right. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep. The YouTube cites are of Crocker's own work and are used to illustrate his vlogging, relaible sourcing covers the rest. He may not be everyone's favorite person but notability has been established so I don't like it would seem to apply here. The article has been a vandal-magnet from the beginning and almost every concern raised on the talk pages had been civilly addressed, even the repeated questions and drive-by comments. The article isn't going away so you may want to make peace with that. Banjeboi 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rightly or wrongly, he has become a legitimate celebrity, and as such is notable. Think what you will about Chris Crocker, but the guy is no dummy, he knows how to market himself. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Loads of reliable sources to establish notability; case closed. — brighterorange (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep bad faith nom. JuJube (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (taken from my post on the article's talk page) He did make headlines not just in the United State but also most of the Worlds News outlets (Not just the internet but newspapers and TV). Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep per the article itself. Notable, sourced, etc. Third time this has been AfD'ed. 71.195.135.161 (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Crocker is, for better or worse, clearly notable and has been the subject of multiple, substantial coverage in the mainstream media. There is not reasonable argument that he fails to meet WP:N. This should not have been nominated for deletion. Gwernol 07:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthropomorphism in film[edit]

List of anthropomorphism in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A bit too broad in coverage. Should we really list every film ever released that has featured talking animals/objects? The topic is unclear too. Do we list films on the basis of having a single anthropomorphic character, or only if they are the main characters? Enoktalk 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT, essentially a listing of loosely related items. The vast majority of animated films will have some measure of anthropomorphism in them, as will a great many other films. Also, as stated above, the inclusion criteria are ill-defined. Not a good list. Arkyan 21:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; There would be innumerable borderline cases clogging it up, too. Unmaintainable. A2Kafir (and...?) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with strict inclusion criteria (ie main characters), it would be a vast and hopelessly heterogeneously portion of all movies that have ever been filmed.victor falk 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, impossible to complete. WillOakland (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of loosely associated films; most animated films will be in this list for sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not unlike making a list of films that have car chases, except that anthropomorphism is a story technique that existed long before film (Aesop's Fables and the Book of Genesis had "talking animals") Mandsford (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is too much subjective information in this stub. It is a 2 year old article with very little edits which suggests it is not notable either: [8] Artene50 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks II[edit]

Alvin and the Chipmunks II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Films not yet in production don't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.

  • Delete. No verifiable evidence of production. Mostly rumors at this point. Celarnor Talk to me 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, there's evidence, but it's too far in the future for there to be enough to base an article on. With what's available, it would essentially be a "It's in production with a budget of so many million dollars", and that doesn't really appeal to me. Celarnor Talk to me 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As previously said. It can be recreated when it's actually in production, with sources and stuff. Also recommend salting it to prevent early recreation in the meantime, at least for the next few months. Or maybe a protected redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks --Ebyabe (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: It is mentioned and referenced in the film article, so no worries there. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is also not based on fantasy or wishful thinking (if that were the case then most articles would probably be about sex ;) ).
  • Delete I think that we should note it on the prequel, as irk said, but I would also like to point out that we have Pixar articles way ahead of this release date Cupy 52040 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbend[edit]

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

All of the notable information in this article is already covered in Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat (which needs work itself). Merge and redirect. Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as insufficiently notable in its own right. I also note that the only incoming wikilink was for an unrelated game of the same name, suggesting a redirect is not the best course. Feel free to contact me if anyone decides to attempt a larger article where this content may be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis City[edit]

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

Not notable content. I can't see how there will be references to come for it either. Ged UK (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Merge possibilities can be discussed at the page. Wizardman 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Dan Kokoro Hikareteku[edit]

Dan Dan Kokoro Hikareteku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable song. Notability of the anime series it is used as an ending theme for is not inherited. Failed PROD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Field of View. A redirect to the group or other appropriate target is the normal dispostion for songs under WP:MUSIC, and it seems likely to me that a reasonable number of those searching for this song will be doing so after discovering the anime, so mention of it is appropriate in the band's article. Actually, if this weren't at AfD I'd do a merge/redirect now. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Field of View, song fails WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - it does not fail WP:MUSIC, because it has been performed by at least 2 notable artists, namely, Field of View and the more popular Zard. Also, it appears that the nominator has not done her research - the song is used as an opening theme, not an ending theme, for one of the most popular anime series worldwide of all time - Dragon Ball (GT). This further solidifies its notability. In addition, the song has been translated to many languages; I can't give a precise figure, but I'd guess at least 20 languages. The song was also released as a single by Field of View. Moreover, even if it somehow failed WP:MUSIC, WP:MUSIC is non-binding and common sense overrides it. I think the above points are enough to assert its notability. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing - this is one of those cases where the song is much more notable than the artist, so if anything, merging it into the artist's article would be a strange course of action. And by the way, although these are not indications of notability, there are 2 more arguments: one, the search "Dan dan kokoro" produced almost 30,000 hits on Google, and two, other Dragon Ball opening themes have articles which aren't being AfD'd by AnmaFinotera, like Cha-La Head-Cha-La and We Gotta Power -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have notified 2 users who contributed to this article of the debate - AnmaFinotera also notified the user Hatto, thinking he created the article (although he did not).Ynhockey (Talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few notes. I didn't notice, Twinkle did. That's who it read as the article creator. For the other Dragon Ball openings, I hadn't gotten to them yet as I'm on clean of GT first. Tackling the entire Dragon Ball series at once would be insane. However, since you pointed them out, I will AfD them since I am guessing by your noting them you will deprod them as you did this one (and interesting you didn't note the two other Dragon Ball themes for the series that I did put up for deletion)? Finally, it does fail WP:MUSIC. The series is a theme (and it was used as the ending for the last episode, so only partially wrong). There is no notability. 30,000 come download a copyright infringing copy of the song, or here are copyrighted lyrics, and here are a bunch of unreliable sources is not a sign of notability. Xymmax, now you see why I did the AfD route :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you got me there :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (EC) Comment: Is the song really more popular than the group? This is an honest question, I don't know the answer. I can't find any evidence that the song charted or anything, although my Japanese is weak. If it has, obviously a better case could be made for its notability. I also considered that the song had been covered by Zard (if covered is the right term since she wrote it). In the end, I just wasn't convinced that the two recording alone made it notable, especially since the second one was by the song's author. I considered the merge targets quite a bit, as Zard certainly is far more popular. In the end I suggested Field of View because they first recorded the song. I wouldn't really have any heartburn with merging to Zard, but perhaps Izumi Sakai would be even better, since she wrote the song in her individual capacity separate from her band. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that it was translated into many languages? This is an important notability gauge for novels, so why not songs? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:MUSIC gives it such an exception, and really I can't see why that would. Songs are short, so they are often translated into other languages (unlike novels). Fans translate nearly every song from anime series all the time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure where you see in Wikipedia:Notability (books) that novels that have been translated in several languages are presumed to be notable. But clearly, translation is not a factor in a songs notability. --Farix (Talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Field of View. The song clearly fails WP:MUSIC. And from my understanding, it has to be performed independently by several notable artists, bands, or groups before it can be presumed notable. The performance by Zard is neither independent nor does it constitute several. --Farix (Talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable single by a notable pop act used in several contexts and covered by another group. Ford MF (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - High profile single for a highly notable anime series, performed by 2 different artists, translated into various languages. Article could/should be expanded about these rather than deleted. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep as a result of sources being found and added into the article. Wizardman 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porn for the Blind[edit]

Porn for the Blind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Describes a prank website as if it were serious 08-15 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see anything particularly notable about it. More importantly, the website is a prank website, and doesn't deserve an article in an encyclopedia. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A hoax of a prank? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax or otherwise, it's simply not notable. Arkyan 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to those above, 1) it is neither a hoax nor a prank; 2) what demonstrates notability besides coverage in major media sources? Which we have. Ford MF (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax or not is probably irelevant (though whether it is one would warrant mention in the article). Problem is, it's not notable as a hoax OR a legit website, at least as far as has been proven. - Vianello (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a link to a Wired article about the web site. I'm curious as to why people are asserting the website is a prank? I'm not seeing evidence of that. (I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of notability, despite the Wired article, but that's a different issue.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wired article establishes notability. Also, I know it is not definitive but there are more than 100000 hits on google for "porn for the blind". ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that almost any google search involving "porn" will return many, many hits. CrazyChemGuy (talk) (Contribs) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure this discussion has happened somewhere on here before. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep with notability established through the Wired and Nassauw Weekly articlesand possibly ABC. Although the ABC link doesn't work so should probably be deleted or fixed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Of course, if the article won't go beyond a stub then delete. --.:Alex:. 11:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator gave no valid reason for deletion – accusations of bad faith by an article's creator (such as "prank website") shouldn't be made without evidence – and the sources found show notability. Here are a couple more for good measure. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is no surprise that there is pornographic material available for the blind, and Phil Bridger has shown that there are reliable sources which document the subject as well. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well covered in reliable sources. Someone's just got to get off their duff and add them to the article already. Ford MF (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The ABC link turned up in my google search on this article too but it may have timed out. There many hits for it on google. Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dead ABC link, barely any article content. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. "Barely any article content" is not even remotely a rationale for deletion. It's hard to imagine anything more contrary to the spirit of a constantly improving Wikipedia. The sources demonstrate notability for what's there, and "it could be better" is the reason we're all here, contributing; it is not a reason to delete. Ford MF (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator gives no valid reason for deletion. There also seem to be reliable sources for this article. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is established, both in the article and above.  Frank  |  talk  01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


Wizardman decided to keep the article 4 years ago due to 2 sources. Both sources have reliability issues for a few reasons. First, neither source refers to any actual owner of the site. They only a person named "Elmer" (although a WHOIS on the domain shows the owner...so again, not very reliable). Also, and both sources are very forward looking, written in 2008. However, their forward looking predictions never came true. There have not been any changes to pornfortheblind or any additional media sources contributing to the site's notability (usage/popularity/advancement) in the past 4 years. Since the sources are now 5 years old, one can see they are not reliable or accurate in their predictions. Porn for the blind is not registered as a non-profit organisation with the US government's official database. The site has not changed its copyright date or content since 2009. It is a dead hoax site (see above comments in the blue box by other users) that is not notable for any reason, but it has amazingly survived wikipedia deletion for many years. I think it is time for it to go (Hoax, not notable, and unreliable sources). Angelatomato (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2012 (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 delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptogenomics[edit]

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

Google scholar gives three hits from the group that introduced the term (one of whom it appears wrote the article) and little evidence that the concept has received coverage elsewhere. A general Google search also does not indicate any widespread use of the term. I do not think that the concept (however valid) has received the kind of independent coverage from reliable secondary sources required to write a neutral encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tending towards delete or merge to....what I am not sure - unless something surprises me. I'll notify WP:MED. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NEO: This is a "protologism"; it is not widely used and the page appears to have been created to promote usage of a term. If the term catches on such that there is a field of research to describe here then a page would be justified, but otherwise not notable and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any neologism with "-omics" is suspect. It just indicates the type of science where you fire a shotgun at a problem in expectation of some results. Not quite like Ernest Rutherford and his helium atoms through. But I digress. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in PubMed two papers use this word, both from 2006 and both from the same authors. This is not a notable or widespread term. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because a group of genetic variations found, does not make it a branch of medicine (likewise no sub-branch of study of FlyBase for genetic variations affecting just the wings of Drosophila melanogaster - what I shall be the first and last to term "Drosophil-aero-genomics")
  • Delete as neologism with no apparent outside support. Ford MF (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I've notified Daforerog (talk · contribs) of this AfD, also issues of WP:COI citing ones own sources.David Ruben Talk 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy keep per WP:ATHLETE which establishes notability. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miltos Gkougkoulakis[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Anarxia (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Steve Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is merely disambiguation page full of redlinks. None of the redlinked persons appear to pass WP:BIO, and the page seems to serve no other purpose than to house a few inline external links. The first two on the list were both articles at one point, but were both deleted per separate AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis (personal trainer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis (broadcaster)) with the former being redeleted post rem under CSD A7. The only redlinks in the list which aren't orphaned are Steve Willis (personal trainer) (mostly from articles related to The Biggest Loser) and Steve Willis (comix artist) (one link from List of minicomics creators). Delete on nine counts of non-notability. haz (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There has been a previous AfD for this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis); however, I'm guessing that the deleted article bears no resemblance to the article in its current form, looking not only at the previous AfD discussion but also at this move log, therefore the article is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G4 as it was in previous instances. haz (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BEANS (we don't actually want most of these redlinks). If any of them, like the playwright, becomes notable then an article may be created, and if any OTHER does then disambiguation via hatnote is recommended anyway. I don't see us meeting the three-items rule of thumb anytime soon. This verges on WP:CSD#G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a sea of red links; very few if any are actually likely to have pages. I could see this going down as a G6 too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MOSDAB.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G6 Agree with Dhartung. This is just housekeeping, no point whatever so ever in this page existing. --neon white talk 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin (project management software)[edit]

Merlin (project management software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication that this software package is notable; no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unreferenced article about a non-notable piece of non-consumer software. What is it about Wikipedia that makes us so attractive to the makers of minor management planning tools? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or else, also delete Omniplan.Merlin has as much notoriety as Omniplan, if not more.
    David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete by PeterSymonds, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AcmePlan[edit]

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

Software package, no indication of notability, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. WP:NOT#DIR. An overarching article might be possible, but these articles are just directory listings of shows. Black Kite 16:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Festivals 2003[edit]

European Festivals 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is not notable. This is merely a listing of appearances by a band in Europe in 2003, put under an arbitrary name. I wouldn't say the same about Sick of the Studio '07 for example. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have similar problems (ie arbitrary names; notability):

European Festivals 2003 Continued (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metallica 2002-2003 Special Shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metallica 1996 Special Shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Monsters of Rock Tour (90-91) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Monsters of Rock Tour (1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metallica early concerts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete there's no context outside of the infoboxes that even tell you what the table represents. I don't think it's a good re-direct because the name is vague but at best a merge to Metallica tours along with the other tours that don't establish notability (including the one referenced above, which at least has content). TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While my original delete stands, I think the others can be merged and re-directed to Metallica tours as they might be likely search terms. As of now, they have no context apart from infoboxes and are nothing more than tables. I think one article with a lead that explains metallca tours covers all adequately. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:51, 21 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, Singularity 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - all the minor Metalica tours can be merged together, with section redirects. Few have enough notability themselves (maybe a couple have enough info to remain seperate), but all together might be a useful articleYobmod (talk) 11:04, 28 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 13 June 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 Redirected to Return of the Living Dead (film series). If there's actually anything encyclopedic to be merged there, then it can be. Black Kite 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarman[edit]

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

Delete article about supporting character from a horror film. This character does not warrant a separate article. Doczilla STOMP! 16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I must admit my amusement at seeing his profession listed as "eating brains." Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 4 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And I'm going to take the time to write a damn good rationale rationale.
It's verifiable, even if those are primary sources and not secondary ones, no interpretation is required (see here). It's neutral.

'Fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms). - Jimbo Wales

There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Search Engine Test, which was used here, meaning that individual assessments of notability will display systemic bias. "Non-notable" is generally a non-NPOV designation. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included.
The policy associated with wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not discriminate against notability. The policy lists specific things that articles cannot be - none of these taboos mention that non-notable aren't allowed.--Phoenix-wiki 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Jimbo's point, but obscure scientific concepts are not comparable to fictional characters. It should be quite easy to establish notability for a fictional character since reliable sources independent of the subject should be abundant for supposedly notable, popular culture topics that millions of people are aware of (as compared to the few 1000 people that Jimbo mentions for Qubit Field Theory). I have yet to see any such sources and, lack of notability aside, without them I don't see how this article can be expanded beyond plot summary and original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is referenced with primary sources, so it isn't really OR, though secondary sources would be more desireable, and I'm sure there are many. Apart from taht, i don't think it's right to delete an article because it can't be expanded.--Phoenix-wiki 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it cannot be expanded beyond plot summary and OR then per WP:NOT there is no content that is suitable for Wikipedia and deletion is the only choice. I suppose the portion on his appearance might not appear to be OR in the strictest sense, but it's merely somebody's commentary detailing the look of character throughout the series. I still don't really see how this creature is notable though without supporting sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect There appeared to be sufficient weight to support a redirect before it was relisted. The character itself is not a main one. As we have quite a bit of precedence on redirecting or deleting minor film or TV characters, I believe this is no exception. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that shows often have spill-over articles about minor characters. A solution could be to merge the article to List of minor characters in Return of the Living Dead (film series) or somesuch. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castlemore Avenue (Markham, Ontario)[edit]

Castlemore Avenue (Markham, Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canada_Roads/Golden_Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely non-notable. Wikipedia is not the place to list every street in Ontario, or Canada, or North America, or the World. There are Google Maps for that. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Google Maps. GreenJoe 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not about listing every street. It is, in fact, a thoroughfare in Markham. If I were to list every single street, why would I not proceed to making articles for all the minor streets before I move on to the major ones. I know Wikipedia is not Google Maps. This article actually list out its unique characteristics that is extremely rare across York Region, especially Markham. The road is designed as (from left to right) Bicycle Lane - Eastbound Traffic - Westbound Traffic - Bicycle Lane -Parking. Typically, this road would have been made into four lanes, for the road is wider than many others. But this was an interesting and unique design, and certainly notable. The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete a road to relieve traffic congestion? There are probably thousands millions of those in Canada alone, and insufficient to make it notable in any way. What is more, the article is completely unsourced, and thus the importance/significance given to it by Roadgeek can only be described as original research for the moment. Anyway, WP is not a directory or streetmap. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination and referenced discussion. PKT (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is essentially a list of places you'll find along the road, as well as roads that intersect this one. The accompanying list of roads parallel to this is odd and irrelevant. This road is nothing more than generic municipal infrastructure, with no definable historical or cultural characteristics beyond its mere existence. So, while it verifiably exists, it is an unencyclopedic topic. (Yes, this is the same comment I made about another road AfD.) Mindmatrix 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to assert any notability. DigitalC (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StatPlus[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable software. ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some are, many arent; Z-StatPlus seems something else altogether, an anti-static product. DGG (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see- some of those are off topic (and some are passing mentions). Some of those hits do refer to this piece of software; something to look at. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a promotional article for non-consumer statistical software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Could you tell me in what sentence have you seen promotional words?P.S. I stop this discussion (for me). If wiki doesn't need new articles, it's better to publish them in magazines without any GPLs. I thought community needs more new referable information in comparison with articles without references. Alexeysim06 (talk) 21:15, 29 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hits exist, but not sufficient about the software, establishing its notability.  Frank  |  talk  20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{refimprove}}—I had come here to close this as no-consensus; however, I found that the software notability guideline is now a dusty part of history and this is a borderline case. I would say that there are two reliable sources that address the software as the main topic ... but they are borderline reliable sources. I have converted these from external links to in-line references. The first is a newsletter produced by a Mac users organization in Canada; the reason why I say this is a potential reliable source is that there is a newsletter content editor and there are organization posts filled with named individuals. I have classed this as a news citation. The second is a blog entry at MacResearch.org; normally, I agree that blogs should not be taken as reliable sources. However, this blog both has a set of named staff and specifically has scientists who are using Macs in their research as contributors. I have classed this as a web citation. These two, in addition to verifiability lent by the company linkages, are sufficient to keep the article as a stand-alone for now. I do not believe that the citations in the article sufficiently support notability of the software at present ... but notability is a guideline and I ask that this article be given the benefit of the doubt for now. If no indisputably reliable sources become available in six months - it should be re-nominated for deletion, in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akaza Research[edit]

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

Non-notable company, spammy article. ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems like an advertisement also non notable. BigDuncTalk 19:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are several third party source, and I am in the process of adding more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idegtev (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the largest free (open-source) clinical trials software available. To clinical researchers it is certainly notable. I need time to edit it to conform to guidelines. It has already been accused of not being notable by someone who didn't read it, but after he did he decided that it was and kept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idegtev (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – For now! The article was created less than 2 hours ago! At the very most it should have been {PROD} tagged. The article states Notability has added references. (Though I have not had a chance to check-out yet). We should at least give our contributors time enough to finish a piece before we recommend it for deletion. ShoesssS Talk 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I am letting my Keep opinion stand! The article as of today is, in my mind, well written – sourced – referenced and has established Notability. In addition, in my research, I was able to find additional news articles concerning the company, as shown here [9], that the author may want to utilize for reference material in the piece. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for your help, I will be including more sources as the article is just bare bones as of now. I really appreciate it. Idegtev (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Shoesss, they're obviously still working on this. Granted, it's a blatant COI, but it has a lot of sources that make it look like it may be notable regardless. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-consumer business without a public face, this is apparently some sort of consultancy providing data management services for medical clinical tests. Conflict of interest problems have already been noted. Several of the references do not seem to actually mention this business, and none of them seem to be in general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which doesn't mention it? I do not think there is a conflict of interest I am making this in my own time and I am not a part of the company, just helping out during the summer. I am doing this from my house during my own time. There is a client website that specifically mentions OpenClinica, and you may feel free to search yourself. Again, OpenClinica is an open source program, freely available for download. The consulting services are provided for those who need them. 66.31.48.63 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even your comments here sound like an advertisement we have read the article and know what it is. BigDuncTalk 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, then can someone explain why this article exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Forward Phase Forward is in the same industry Akaza is in, and a simple Google search came up with an article for it in Wikipedia. Following your logic, this must also be advertisement. All of their sources are from press releases and most of the article focuses on the former CEO. It is obviously more developed but they have also undoubtedly had much more time to do so. The Akaza entry has been up for two days... Just want to see what you guys think. Thanks. Idegtev (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article, they do appear to be a public company, which Akaza does not appear to be. Could this be the difference? — BradV 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also before it was mentioned that my comments sounded like advertisement. Again, I have absolutely nothing to advertise, I am a college student who is helping out. The money I earn is from making databases during the summer, this was my idea and I am the only one who is working on this. I mention that OpenClinica is free simply because I believe that is what is notable about Akaza. The firm's income is based around support for the product to those that need it and different licensing. To use the previous example, Phase Forward provides a similar product but it is not open source. My only "interest" is in successfully making my first Wikipedia article, which is why I am even bothering to argue for this. Idegtev (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It still reads like an advertisement, but there are sufficient sources to allow for improving the article. BradV 15:51, 5 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wanted to make another note about notability. Bio-IT World recently had an article about Akaza and OpenClinica. The core difference between the open-source model and the other EDC's is discussed. The article can be found here: http://www.bio-itworld.com/ecliniqua/2008/06/02/akaza-openclinica-no-cost-edc.html?terms=open+source Thanks for your consideration, I am still working on the entry. Idegtev (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wanted to mention that I was the person who first tried to speedy this -- although I beg to differ mildly with the creator's suggestion that I hadn't read it. What got me to remove my own tag in the first place was the suggestion that this is the best-supported open source software for clinical trials; once I gave it some thought, I felt that that was more notable than I had first considered. And, coincidentally, a colleague pointed out a symposium in my home city on precisely this sort of topic, which means it's getting considerable academic attention. Yes, the original article was a COI, but I felt this individual was trying to work within COI boundaries, had adequately disclosed, and was in a very good position to provide the most useful information and resources. I do think this is an important topic and I'd like to see this article kept and added to. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See, for instance, [10] this link, which indicates the level of academic interest in this area. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and Desperately in need of a cleanuprewrite. It's far too spammy for an encyclopaedia article, and could be better sourced if it was truly notable. Once that's done, we can have another look at it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at cleaning it up: it reads like it could have come from the Akaza Research or OpenClinica website, and now believe it needs to be completely re-written. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you give me more suggestions on how to make it sound more like a Wikipedia article? Originally parts of it were indeed from the website, but it has been totally rewritten since then, in fact about an hour since it was first put online. It now contains mostly third party facts, as well as my own description of the company and Openclinica. What do you feel needs to be removed? Idegtev (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OpenClinica seems, to me, to be more notable than Akaza Research. Is there any possibility of making the software into the basic topic of the article - essentially starting over with an OpenClinica article? Tim Ross (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article features some truly crap, press-release-sounding prose, but a need for cleanup is no rationale to delete. Sourced enough to satisfy our guidelines. Ford MF (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been working on the article over the past several days, and I am wondering if you guys can see any improvement. I think I have made it more informative as well as to-the-point and non-biased. Idegtev (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The deleters argued that the page had insufficient reliable sources and pointed out the lack of real world context. The keepers countered with the assertion that sources were available, and will be added given time, and also argued that as a compilation page it was a good way to organise material that, individually, would not justify an article. Overall, I see a balance of arguments and there was no consensus. However, the flaws highlighted by the deleters do need fixing and, if the article is not improved in a reasonable time, say 3 months, then no objection could be taken to a further listing. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography in the Suikoden series[edit]

Geography in the Suikoden series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the sort of combination article that should be encouraged. The individual things treated there are not appropriate for full articles, and this is a reasonable place to put them. In practice this is an arrangement of material, not really viewed separately. I find it really ironic that given all the debating on fiction, there isnt yet complete acceptance of the middle way of handling things. DGG (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem I agree these are not appropriate for full articles. So how does putting multiple non-notable items together allow them to pass the WP:GNG? Randomran (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same way any notable article can be broken down into numerous non-notable components. Ford MF (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, but where are the reliable and independent sources to show that this article is notable? Randomran (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no non-trivial coverage reliable verifiable secondary sources present to establish notability. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. We don't need a whole article on a list of game locations that the reader doesn't need to know to understand the game. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Cleanup with a preference to merge/redirect (to Suikoden) if immediatism prevails and this article is found wanting. No, this article isn't close to what it should eventually be, as it's entirely too list heavy at the moment without enough real world context. But just because real world context is annoying to get at requiring Japanese translation doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it'll just be slow going. This is a single article for the setting of an ~8 game or so series with various spinoffs that viable development information has already been found in some other articles; it can be given time. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the game is notable, then keep; if the game is not notable, then delete. (By the way, Second Life does not seem to have its own geography article, and Second Life is notable.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the game and series are notable. See Suikoden (video game) and Suikoden. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game is notable, but its geography is not. Notability is measured against the general notability guideline which requires coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Against this standard, the article fails. (If other articles fail too, that's irrelevant right now. Articles will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.) Randomran (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence I made a neutral comment, which does not state a position for delete or keep - informing an editor that the series and game are in fact notable. (Quick edit: It appears I put my comment under the wrong person, which may have prompted your response, I'm moving to the right location) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. My comment wasn't directed at you per se, but at the main comment: that it doesn't entirely matter if the game itself is notable. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not follow the WP:Writing about fiction guidelines, or WP:Notability guidelines, and I don't see how the article could be altered to adhere to them. Interested contributors may wish to transwiki to a gaming-specific encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It could be altered to something closer to Ivalice or World of Final Fantasy VIII, which are both good articles. It will undoubtedly take time and research, but Wikipedia is not on a deadline.
Note to closer: If some measure of good faith is being looked for, I think a rename to "World of Suikoden" and possibly some additional merging / reworking could certainly be done to improve the article, and I'd be willing to give that a shot. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My faculties and schedule being what they are at the moment, I am forced to just add a warm body for this side and note my support for DGG. This is an arrangement of material, a valuable and often vital feature that tends to go unnoticed in favor of acronyms with WP: in front of them when matters are being wrangled. A further thank-you to SnowFire. Great big articulate argument coming when cited limitations permit. --Kizor 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I would have to think that these books can be used to better reference the article and serve as reliable sources. Plus, clear reader/editor interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem: those are primary and first-party sources such as gameguides and novels. These can be helpful references to fill in factual gaps. But they can't show that this "geography" is notable. This topic has no third-party, secondary sources. That's why this article is up for AFD. Randomran (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem. The amount of them demonstrates notable and they are reliable sources. Citing a game guide no more makes us a game guide than citing a journal makes us a journal. There are also third-party, secondary sources as indicated which is why this article should not be up for AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't seen these third party / independent resources that you're talking about. Without them, this article doesn't meet the GNG. Randomran (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please look harder because they've been presented on wiki and the article clearly passes the GNG. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like I said, those references you pointed out are not independent, and thus can't help this article meet the GNG. Randomran (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm talking about the independent ones as well that do help the article meet the GNG. They are there and if I could find them, I am sure you can too. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • But you can't find them and neither can I. That's why we've concluded it doesn't meet the GNG. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 13 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But I can find them and so can you. That's why we've concluded it does meet the GNG. Reviews of the game even focus on the geography from one game in the series to the other. Hence why the article includes both in and out of universe information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I saw that one. One line about geography isn't significant coverage. Like I said, the references just don't exist. Randomran (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • When it's the title of the review and can be used with information in other reviews as well as the published strategy guides we have substantial information from which to build an article. This article is not original research in the vein of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, which as you can see I did think should be deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That review from 1up is only two short paragraphs with a snippy comment about "Gilligan's Island". This isn't enough to make the whole topic notable. I appreciate your efforts, though. Randomran (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LGRC. This should be doable as a topic. Mangojuicetalk 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notability asserted through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. This is entirely OR, or based on non-reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, no demonstration of RS. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kizor. This has merit. User:Krator (t c) 10:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. This is the right thing to have here. No objection to a rename to "world of...." Hobit (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also per DGG, seems like an eminently reasonable way to proceed with these type of fictional elements. RMHED (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone's favorite wikimachine, DGG (why do I see this guy all over the place? does he leave the house ever?). Ford MF (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article totally consists of in-universe material without any real-world information on its development or reception. It is simply a list of locations, indiscriminate in regards to even in-game notability. Wikipedia is neither a travel guide nor an indiscriminate repository of information. Jappalang (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can those people !voting keep provide some suggestions as to where to find sourcing for this information? Corvus cornixtalk 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Published video game magazines could work as reliable secondary sources and published video game strategy books (citing these makes us no more a guide than citing the New York Times makes us a newspaper) can work as reliable primary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these published video game magazines don't give any significant coverage to the geography of the Suikoden series. Randomran (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They give significant enough for coverage on Wikipedia and from which we can reference an article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen them? If you can add those sources, then I'll gladly withdraw the AFD. Randomran (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use the link above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remaining neutral, however I did want to comment that The amazon link posted by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles points to gameguides, art books and some books that have the title "Suikoden" but are otherwise unrelated. I interpreted Corvus cornix's request for sources as one for explicitly cited sources. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citing these sources no more makes us what they are than citing a scholarly journal makes us a journal rather than an encyclopedia. One way of going about finding more in the way of secondary source referenced I think could be to try variations of the article title with the name of a reputable game magazine, i.e. [11] and then use what we find in these secondary references and combine it with published books on Amazon.com to balance the in and out of universe coverage. I'll start revising the article myself accordingly. So, please take note of changes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Randomran is asking for sources (by which I presume he means third-party sources - plenty of first-party resources for parts from the games themselves); there are a variety of magazine interviews in Japanese gaming magazines that I've seen used for information on some other Suikoden websites as far as development information, and English-language game/manga reviews for reception. Now, I will agree that Geography might well be too narrow a scope, which is why - if this article is seen as basically salvageable - I would be in favor of moving it to "World of Suikoden" and merging information in. That said, even at worst, this can ultimately be a Summary Style fork of information that is common to an entire franchise and best placed in one spot, though I think that enough sources do exist that that won't have to be fallen back upon in the long run. Wikipedia is not on a deadline, etc., so even if it takes awhile for this to appear, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. SnowFire (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is a policy, however, and if there is no verifiable evidence for the claims made in the article, it has to be removed. Corvus cornixtalk 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is definitely not on a deadline. But if the sources don't exist, then it's just not notable. If you really honestly believe the third party sources exist (e.g.: not game guides, instruction manuals, or novels), I'm willing to postpone this AFD (rather than simply ending up in no consensus). But if we postpone and there's no references added, it's safe to assume that this isn't notable IMO. That's not a deadline. That's just drawing a pretty safe conclusion based on the evidence. Honestly, are you sure there are actual references out there? Randomran (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted under criterion G4 by User:Fvasconcellos. Non admin close. Guest9999 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke the Fridge[edit]

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

Completely unashamed neologism, unused by any sources of note whatsoever. Nandesuka (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Status dynamic psychotherapy[edit]

The result was Keep. Triwbe (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status dynamic psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an essay full of WP:OR and fails on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. WP:SYN is probably an issue. Triwbe (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It seems like a legitimate term and certainly has received some coverage, however: the article desperately needs clean up and I agree that a significant proportion appears to be largely essayist commentary. I don't think deletion is the answer though. WilliamH (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your helpful comments and suggestions. A reworking of the entry is currently in progress to be less essay-like or textbook in format and more consistent with encyclopedic entries. Anabridges (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Definitely a legitimate term, a recognized system of psychotherapy like gestalt or existential. Should be kept while the author reworks the style to fit wiki standards. --Anscombe (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am author of this entry and am currently in process of revising it to a more encyclopedic style. Note rewrites of the introduction and first section. --[(User: Ray Bergner|Ray Bergner)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Bergner (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since your book is the main source of references for this article, this raises WP:OR, WP:SPS and WP:COI issues. --Triwbe (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (U*TC)
Comment The references are not self-published sources: they are all published by reputable academic publishers, and the article conforms to the WP:NOR#Citing oneself policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep". Having observed my wife employing the methods of Status Dynamic Therapy over 40 years of successful practice, I can vouch that this Wikipedia entry does not represent original research, but instead describes what has been around for quite a while. I can understand the concern about the number of self-citations, but I would attribute it to the fact that although many have contributed to this discipline, Bergner has been the most prolific writer. I am aware that the article is currently being revised by people who are new to Wikipedia, and I am confident that replacements will be found for any passages that are overly instructive or lacking in neutrality. I certainly consider the topic to be worthy of an article, in appropriate Wikipedia style. Buffcreek (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous editor is new and has made no contributions so far. --Triwbe (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This is an important contribution. I had opportunity to be trained in this form of psychotherapy thirty years ago by Peter Ossorio, a professor at University of Colorado, Boulder. I found it immensely useful as a framework for understanding problems and intervening to resolve them, with an elegance I rarely saw manifested in other frameworks. I have long been frustrated that it had been insufficiently communicated to others, and specifically, that it was not presented in Wikipedia. It arises from the system of thought, or school of psychology, known as Descriptive Psychology, which I hope will also be presented in Wikipedia. Walte51 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous editor is new and has made no contributions so far. --Triwbe (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should be pleased when subject experts choose to contribute to Wikipedia, not trying to frighten them off with wikilawyering templates. Citing oneself is not original research as long as the sources have been published by reputable publishers, as these have. There are also several citations from other authors, and there are more sources available from Google Books and Google Scholar searches. I haven't looked through previous versions of the article, but as it now stands I don't see this reads like a text book - or at least there's enough there that doesn't read like a text book to sustain an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with the above positive comments. Status Dynamics therapy is a formal approach that deserves to be more widely recognized. I also trained with Peter Ossorio in the 1970s. His work provides an important basis for new therapy approaches and provides a conceptual framework for systematic comparisons across therapy approaches. It is supported by years of critical work by Ossorio and his students. As a previous commenter noted, although the author of this article is the person who has published most prolifically on this topic, the approach to therapy summarized in this article benefits from a broad and firm foundation of conceptual development, as well as by the clinical experience of its practitioners. I'd recommend that this article be kept.Nlkirsch (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, arguably a group with no assertion of notability, WP:NFT ("Squazzle™ is a drinking game first invented in Tim Thorpe's bedroom"), WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squazzle[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Drinking game made up in March by some kids with nothing better to do. As if contesting the PROD wasn't enough they also decided to call me a c*nt on my user page. Nice. Delete. Roleplayer (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nom after relisting with many thanks to those who commented and further clarified editor consensus on this article, which falls under WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Gardner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joshua Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While this topic is meaningful to Wikipedia's history it is not notable in the wider world and does not meet the proposed guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Most of the notability stemmed from a single series of edits this individual made to Wikipedia to further an impersonation scheme over which no subsequent criminal conviction is noted in the article. Moreover, the article notes only one earlier criminal conviction, for a wholly un-notable and single crime. Biography of living person policy is meaningful here because here both because of the undue weight brought to bear by his Wikipedia edits along with the BLP warning: Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly (to put it more pithily, the "gotchya" side to this article is a bit glaring, even if this happened in good faith). Given this, the Wikipedia community might ponder the conflict of interest worries this article raises for Wikipedia, given the self-referential aspect at its root. Lastly, most of the independent coverage was limited to stories stemming from a short string of AP reports, which are more often than not cited by the other sources and I also find it a bit odd (and perhaps telling) that one of the references cited for this article is a Wikipedia project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's obviously notable that a sex-offender's hoax was exposed by a Wikipedia AfD. Further, the article is factual about its subject's actions, the fact those actions reflect poorly on the subject is the the subject's fault, not the article's. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 7 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, John254 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the references provided in Joshua_Gardner#References indicate sufficient coverage of Joshua Gardner in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. Deletions of articles concerning otherwise notable individuals per our biographies of living persons policy are primarily designed to avoid providing publicity concerning people who have suffered a derogatory notability through no fault of their own, not to assist serious criminals in the avoidance of the well-deserved infamy for their crimes. John254 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there are sufficient secondary sources to indicate notability. The Wikipedia ref is a problem, however the info that it purports to verify is verified by one of the other refs. Kevin (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I have removed the Wikipedia ref, in case anyone is looking for it. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The secondary sources are rather impressive, including international coverage. I don't think the article serves primarily to mock or disparage its subject either. Maxamegalon2000 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Elkins (writer)[edit]

Suzy Elkins (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability under WP:CREATIVE. One novel (which turns out to be vanity-published [12] [13]); personal website has been down since 2007; and I can find no third-party sources supporting the claims that she's a "well-known" author or that the book had "critical acclaim". Appears to be a vanity creation anyway: compare creator name Alexstott (talk · contribs) and staff list of AA1 Media, Amesbury. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:24, 29 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was that this AfD was overtaken by events. Consensus was to delete the huge list of schools, but the article has in the interim been completely rewritten and should now be properly called List of lists of schools in the United States. It would take another AfD (not that I would recommend starting one) to determine whether there is consensus to delete this new article.  Sandstein  17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of schools in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Note - The AfDs for this article are misleading. The first AfD represents three distinct AfDs from 2003-2004.

This should be a category, not an article. Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: If it were sorted by state or some other criterion besides alphabetical order, that might change my mind. As it is now, this article doesn't offer anything that a Category page wouldn't. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: If consensus is to delete, please userfy the article to my userspace so it can be organized by state and district; it needs work, but I think there's a viable list here. Celarnor Talk to me 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically this is a keep. Delete but preserve history and {{softredirect}} to Category:United_States_education_by_state and Lists of school districts in the United States. Preserve history to aide in expanding school district articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially, this is a list of Wikipedia articles about high schools in the USA, which is also accomplished with a category (actually, it's a list of schools in the USA, which is even worse). There are thousands and thousands of high schools in the United States (i.e. more than 4,000), let alone all the middle schools and elementary schools; I suppose one could throw in colleges and business schools and preschools and beauty schools if one wanted to get technical, but assuming it was just a list of high schools, and I can't see what need would be served by listing all of them in alphabetical order. Perhaps someone would see that their school is a red link, and make it a blue link, although I think they would notice that their school lacks an article even before seeing the list. Perhaps someone would find an object that says "AHS" and look here for a clue about which high school the object came from, but that seems unlikely also. Perhaps someone would look to see where all the "Fremont High School" schools in America were located, but that would be accomplished by googling. If someone could show me that there was a need for this, I'd change my mind, but I don't see why you'd want an Aberdeen High to Zanesville High list of thousands of high schools. Inevitably, this useless list would be spun off into even more useless lists, such as "List of schools in the United States beginning with A". This isn't a good idea for an article. Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Categorise as it stands I really don't see the advantage of this list over a category and there doesn't seem to be the impetus to change it significantly to make it more useful/useable. Guest9999 (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per redundancy between categories and lists not being a reason for deletion. I'm not really convinced that a category would serve the same function. Categories just aren't dynamic enough to allow for good presentation of information yet without creating separate subcategories. Until they are, I think it is a much better solution to have a human-readable list to accompany the given category; there's a lot of room for improvement, and the NOEFFORT argument doesn't really make sense to me in an environment where articles are in a constant state of flux. This could be separated by geographic region and then by state. Really, for things of this size, there should be a List of schools in Kansas, List of schools in New York, etc, and this list could link to all of those. Keeping in mind that our goal is to present information to people and not to computers, I think its best to keep this. Celarnor Talk to me 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are already lists of school districts in each state. The individual school districts are the most obvious place to put schools in list form. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are districts themselves, not the schools within them. Useful for someone researching districts, but not schools themselves. Celarnor Talk to me 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There comes a point where things are ridiculous because things are too big, too unwieldy, too hard to maintain, or duplicate information found elsewhere in a way that becomes hard to maintain in sync. Somewhere between List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme and List of educational institutions on Planet Earth is the right place to draw the line. In a country where even the list of school districts is broken down by state, NOT breaking down the list of schools into states or individual school districts leads to a mega-sized list that is difficult to manage. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the place to draw that line is at the schools; they need to be included in a hierarchal list. The appropriate place for them isn't here in one massive list, but importantly, that doesn't exclude listings higher up in the heirachy for navigational purposes. Remember that our navigational system is based on lists, not categories. We need List of schools, just like we need List of schools in the United States, because that's how people navigate. The actual list of schools doesn't have to be there, but it's the appropriate name to host the next level of content. Consensus seems to be that high schools are notable, so a decent system to should be in place to organize them, starting with individual listings like List of schools in district Y. I don't agree that we shouldn't have this page at all; this page should at least link to each List of school districts in state x, since that's how the United States operates its schools, and that's the most appropriate way to organize it based on our navigation system. Celarnor Talk to me 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hierarchy already exists for public schools, it is List of school districts in the United States->list of school districts in [state]->[School district article] which, if complete, would list the schools in that school district. The soft-redirect I propose above will serve as a navigational aide without unnecessarily duplicating existing information. Of course, many of these articles are woefully incomplete, but where they are complete, it is as easy to find as a hierarchical set of "List of public schools in the United States"->"List of public schools in New York State"->"List of public schools in Queens County" would be.
For private schools, a similar set of lists can be developed, only since most such schools are stand-alone, breaking down by state, county, or metropolitan area would make more sense, e.g. List of private schools in New York State.
In any case, the only advantage to a list, list-of-lists, or lists-of-lists over categories is they can include non-notable entities like Your Neighborhood Elementary School that categories cannot.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists can do many, many things that categories can't, or can but do badly. I can cross elements (i.e, Schools in New York can include both private and public schools), and add descriptions and formatting to make it more human-readable. Categories are ugly to look at, can't be edited for formatting, and need subcategories that you can't look at all at the same time. My main issue is that someone not familiar with the district system will get confused. Someone who is looking for a list of schools is looking for a list of schools. They're not going to type "List of school districts in the United States". A soft-redirect, I suppose, is a viable solution, but it doesn't incorporate what you suggest. I would say that each state should get accompanying private and public school lists and categories and those would get linked to from here; that way, all the information is centralized and accessible from one location; two separate lists aren't necessary, and we aren't favoring one school type over another; the private vs. public school thing brings up an interesting point that makes it more imperative that this page gets kept and adapted. Celarnor Talk to me 03:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. That's a content issue, and only means that there's improvement to be had. Celarnor Talk to me 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant with other categories and hopelessly too large to properly maintain and keep updated and accurate. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is a "useless" list and impossible to maintain. Reliance on category is infinitely preferable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this version, as lumping all the schools together on one page will be MASSIVE, unmaintainable, and so incomplete that it becomes useless. (It is basically a list of randomly(?) selected schools in US, which is not what the title promises.) I could see this working if this is the top of a list pyramid, with entries like "List of schools in Alabama" and so on, in that case it would be a good navigational tool which might be a bit more flexible than categories since we can list by district and not just in alphabetical order. So if anyone wants to recreate (or rewrite) in that form, that's fine. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding Celarnor's remarks, I for one would consider a WP:HEY criteria that the article needs to be reorganized so that it is actually easier to navigate than the category page (right now, the *HS organization just makes it confusing) and ought to be as complete as the category page (within a few percent at least, allowing that new school could be created while doing the formatting). The apparent intentions of this article do not demonstrate value to me; but Celarnor's proposed article may have some value. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel Horn[edit]

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

Article asserts mild notability but completely unsourced. Ghits don't throw up any reliable sources, just on-line retailers and forum postings. Happy to withdraw if RS can be found to substantiate notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 29 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've found a Google news search to be a pretty good indicator of a company's notablity, and this one gets no hits. The business appears to have been around a while, so there may be some pre-internet sources available somewhere. However, at this point there is simply no evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techstep[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced article about what appears to me an extremely minor subgenre. neon white talk 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added a reference, the Google News results are dominated by subscription-only coverage but more sources exist whether available on the internet or not. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reference doesn't address the subject in enough detail to assert any notability. Subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, claiming they may exist is not enough. --neon white talk 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the late 1990s this was not a "minor" subgenre of drum and bass. I agree better sources need to be found, but keep the article and let people work on finding the sources. If you are going to delete this article, there are plenty of other articles about drum and bass subgenres that are smaller subgenres and should be deleted first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.65.128.6 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty notable musical subgenre. Even I know this one, and I mostly loathe electronic music. Ford MF (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article asserts no notability and there are no sources. Use a valid arguements. Your personal opinion isn't really of any use. --neon white talk 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added what I think are more than sufficient sources to satisfy WP:RS. Amazing what ten seconds on Google can do these days, innit? Ford MF (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide excerpts that prove this is significant coverage. I still support the merging of many sub genres to the Drum and bass page or a seperate 'sub genres of Drum and bass' page. --neon white talk 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you should be any less able to click the citation links and search than I am. Generation Ecstasy, published by an academic press contains an entire chapter on techstep. Ford MF (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The HITZ:Remix 09(album)[edit]

The HITZ:Remix 09(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible (probable) hoax; at the very least, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Note: this author has created a number of album, song pages for the artist Ladies Man(Singer), most of which are already up for AfD. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The HITZ:Remix 08(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phurnace[edit]

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

This article was originally nominated for CSDa7. While I don't feel that it proves notability, there is enough doubt in my mind that I wasn't comfortable deleting it. However, I feel an Afd is warranted as that there are significant problems with the article, notably WP:COI, WP:N and WP:CORP. Trusilver 15:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cannot find any evidence in second or third party sources to suggest notability. --neon white talk 16:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete school project. I was also tempted to tag it db-spam. I agree that there are significant problems, first of all that the company does not appear notable. It was created and primarily edited by a single-purpose account. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie Cutter Series[edit]

Cookie Cutter Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod; a protologism with no references or sources to demonstrate notability or, indeed, any usage other than that of the article's creator. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Of course, anyone is free to redirect to Bakery. I'll also provide the deleted content for a merge upon request. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bread shop[edit]

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

A dictionary definition at best of a commonplace phrase AndrewHowse (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Trusilver 16:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it's certainly a stub, it's already more than a dictionary definition. There are many bread shops (often but not always described as hot bread shops) in Australia that don't fit the traditional pattern of a bakery, and it would be wrong to describe them as bakeries. Rather, they're a new sort of business that has only developed here within my lifetime. Andrewa (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If, as you wrote of hot bread shops, they are stores where bread is baked and sold, then perhaps we should redirect to bakery. Or, if there's some distinguishing characteristic of Australian bread shops, then rd to bakery and add something (sourced of course) there. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. "bread shop" isn't even an accepted name for what the article describes, but more of a working title. It certainly is unsourcable. I agree that it could be mentioned in bakery, but it definitely shouldn't have a separate article. Trusilver 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although, by analogy to pie shop, bread shop might well be accepted in Australia. I just think bakery covers it, as currently written. In fact, I might have done better to redirect it than bring it here. Let's see if User:Andrewa can clarify why he sees them as different. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Disagree that it's unsourceable, see this Google search and note that most (not all) of the entries are capitalised, indicating that it's the name of the business. I'd have no objection to a merge, especially if it turns out to be an Australia-only phenomenon... I know Bakers Delight, to which many (but not even most) Australian bread shops belong is an Australian invention, but it's now active in several other countries, and I imagined they'd have their home-grown competitors there. Or, perhaps a move to hot bread shop would be a possibility, I only used the shorter term thinking, perhaps wrongly, that it might be more generic worldwide. Yes, it could be merged to bakery, my feeling was that the bread shop movement of the past 40 years or so (before Bakers Delight, note) had a history that would be a bit out of place in the bakery article, which rightly IMO refers to more conventional establishments, but for now a merge and redirect would be fine, and if later there's enough material we can just split it back. I'd be more inclined to leave it as a stub, obviously, and save the trouble. Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictdef. If it can be expanded then maybe a keep can be justified. Fails WP:RS, WP:N and ]WP:V. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Seems like a nice start actually, but lacks any refs or "article" structure. The term and his history is probably more fitting for a dictionary anyways. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Lofts[edit]

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

"Evolution Lofts are two condo towers that could be located in Downtown Las Vegas. They are considered a stale proposal. If built..." These buildings are nonexistent, unlikely to be built, and therefore not deserving of a separate article. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Nishii[edit]

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

I would most likely tag this for SD, but I am unsure. Not every little magazine editor has a Wikipedia Page! Do they? StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with a bullet. No, not every little magazine editor has a Wikipedia Page! And since [now for the Big Secret] Wikipedia is paper, this means that there is paper left over for big magazine editors, such as the rotund (if late) Nishii, a notable editor of Camera Mainichi (a magazine known well among everybody interested in Japanese photography who's above the Playstation generation). Moreover, Nishii's collections of opinionated criticism add up to one of the chronologies of the remarkable changes in Japanese photography from the aftermath of Provoke to the arrival of Hiromix prettiness. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I tend to agree that editing even a big magazine is not in itself always an encyclopedic career, there seem to be many English language citations for Nishii and moreover, I was able to quickly find hundreds in Japanese. Easily meets WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The quantity and quality of Nishii's publications (that he wrote or edited) is easily more than sufficient to justify an article in Wikipedia. An important figure in Japanese photography in the second half of the 20th century. Pinkville (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep Major editor and critic, and a prolific, published author. What's going on at AfD? This rivals the well-known but unfinished Charles Laughton / Josef von Sternberg film, now fighting for its existence... or, if you've never heard of Laughton & von Sternberg, there are those three Pokemon nominations... Dekkappai (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I agree with the principle that not every little magazine editor deserves an article, I think Nishii's publication list places him above the description "little magazine editor." Fg2 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage he has. That should be enough to establish the notability, right?-- Taku (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jendo[edit]

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

Previously speedied as a hoax. Nate1481(t/c) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every source I can find seems to have been written by the same person. Gr1st (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete was deleted before alongside the now recreated Traditional Arnis and the founder's page, which has also been recreated (Jonathan Makiling Abaya); I don't think it was a hoax, though, just not notable. JJL (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is not a hoax. However, it is not notable. Google Books and Google Scholar searches return empty handed. Google search provides some info but most are only passing TV appearances. There are no independent and reliable source regarding its use in Filipino Martial Arts tournaments.--Lenticel (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small-circle Philippine martial art. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An offshoot school of Arnis that is yet to pass notability. Starczamora (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Content problems should be addressed by improving the article.  Sandstein  23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Wilde[edit]

Hey guys...I have had people try to write crazy things, and if it is suitable...please help me to learn how to prevent this, or to remedy.....I or a staff member can always clean grammar and language..but whenever I or staff sees weird or false info, we have to respond...Thank you for your time, and I hope that I will not have to check this entry every day as I have in the past 2 weeks to counter the vandals...Thank you so much for helping me....Liz wilde/Annie

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

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO - even after all the work the subject herself has done on the article, only a small number of references to secondary sources are provided and those are each very short, the latest 7 years old to when she went to work for NBG Radio Network which went bust 2 years later. Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to be enough second party sources but alot of the article can and should go. Guidelines suggest to keep it to basics with lesser known people. --neon white talk 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not temporary. Dppowell (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note. A separate AfD, Liz Wilde (2nd nomination), had been created by mistake. I closed that AfD and delisted it from the log. I will leave a note for each person who commented there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are too few reliable sources to allow writing a proper article. Since the subject has complained about improper editing of the article, it seems there are at least some BLP concerns. This article also drew COI attention since it appeared that the subject was writing most of the content. The weakness of the sources, the difficulty in meeting WP:BIO, the subject's BLP concerns, the neutrality problems caused by such a large contribution by the subject herself, all appear to be solved by deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is a mess and it's likely always going to have BLP/COI issues if the subject keeps editing it, but among the false positives there are more than enough sources from which to draw an article. Unless there are valid BLP issues, subject needs to play by Wiki rules/guidelines. Not doing so is not a reason to delete the article TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as available secondary sources speak compellingly to notability and verifiability. The article is a mess but that's a matter for clean-up, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a number secondary sources (I added a number to this article before the COI edit war started) but these sources mention Wilde's move from station to station. This town to town, up and down the dial is the nature of radio and doesn't indicate notability. I'm not seeing mention of any lasting contribution to the radio industry or any awards per WP:BIO. Claims that she's the only/first female shock jock are WP:original research without references to back them up. Also, given the persistent COI editing. Deletion and salting seems to be in order to prevent future headaches.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established by coverage in second party sources not by what they say. A coi is never a valid argument for deletion. It's merely a content issue. --neon white talk 02:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although she appears to be one of an increasing number of people who attract attention by simply being outrageous, being Drivetime DJ on a nationally syndicated slot would probably be sufficient to establish notability. However, there is a ton of unattributable and potentially unverifiable stuff, which may need to be deleted. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove at least 80% of the myspace-style story-of-my-life content that's in it. — Athaenara ✉ 09:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. AFD is not a remedy even if the subject of the article is editing her own article. She minimally qualifies, nuff said.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though I realize that the quality of the article is not an AfD concern, it sometimes happens that new references will be unearthed during an AfD discussion. It has not happened this time, since none of the voters have come up with new references. It seems inevitable that, due to the COI problems, the article is going to be rewritten so that everything is based on reliable sources. However there are currently only four sources, all of which require payment to view, and the most recent of them was published in 2001. Unless anyone feels like paying to view the references, we will probably wind up with a three-sentence article saying that she exists, she is a shock jock, and she is on the radio. Is this really the best we can do? EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pay-per-view articles aren't really too big of a deal since they refer to newspaper articles that could be verified if necessary. Many editors seem to think that finding several mentions of the article's subject in newspapers or magazines is sufficient to establish notabilty, it's not. WP:NOT states that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. WP:BIO emphasizes this with If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Based on the claims that she is the first and/or only female shock jock, I'm inclined to say she's notable but without reliable 3rd party, non-trivial, sources to back up this claim, it's just a claim. I added the references that I could locate (the only ones that are there) but they are pretty trivial.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ms Wilde seems to be notable enough. The article is not pretty but maybe when she gets more press coverage a better one can be written. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you mind telling why you !voted "delete?" Thank you, RyRy5 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, but gut with a chainsaw per WP:BLP until some WP:RS can be dug up for some of this stuff. Ford MF (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. May be restored for selective merging.  Sandstein  18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 measles outbreak in California[edit]

2008 measles outbreak in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A dozen cases over two months and no deaths. Made the local news, and attracted the CDC's attention (it is their job to look after such things), but not really notable in a lasting way. Biruitorul Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:N, notability does not expire or go away after a certain amount of time. Happyme22 (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability doesn't expire, but sensationalism does. This event was sensational, but never notable. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to MMR_vaccine_controversy#Disease_outbreaks. This outbreak is just part of a pattern of undervaccination incidents. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that simply delete. At the risk of sounding slightly macabre, wait until we have an actual epidemic or some broader impact than just a flash in the pan. One article for 2008 all of the outbreaks might be interesting, but better would be a subarticle on frequency and distribution of outbreaks vs. vaccination and other public health initiatives. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly of note historically, agree with everyking and happyme22Myheartinchile (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we're also going to include the 2008 measles outbreak in Illinois, the 2008 measles outbreak in Arizona and the 2008 measles outbreak in Toronto. It appears that measles outbreaks are fairly common. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do they have significant press coverage like this one does? If so, you won't hear any objection from me. Everyking (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They have as much or more press coverage than the California outbreak. That is to say, local news sources covered them for a few weeks and a couple of national sources pick it up. According to this there have been a dozen outbreaks in the US so far in 2008. It doesn't make sense to have an article about each one. It might make sense to have a single 2008 measles outbreaks in North America article as the number of outbreaks this year does seem to be unusual. Pburka (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • They could be written about as one article. If we want to do that, the proper outcome is to keep this article and then move or redirect it into a new article with a broader scope. Everyking (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last I heard, we can't delete and merge. It destroys the page histories. Singly, the measles epidemics <<obsolete term showing my age. much more pc to call an epidemic an outbreak.>> are not sufficiently notable and would be better redirected and merged into a single article, like Measles Outbreaks of 2008. Collectively and historically, measles outbreaks are significant and notable. We are fortunate in the lack of fatalities-- that will change. Cheers, and happy editing.

Dlohcierekim 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --24 cases is not even close to an epidemic. This no doubt also applies to other measles outbreak articles. 49 years ago when I had it, measles was a common childhood disease. Since vaccination it has become rare. It needs something much larger scale to warrnat an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting point, Peter. Technically, it is an epidemic> outbreak, though. Perhaps there is a greater notability involved here. Perhaps it's notable that these things happen at a time when the disease could possibly be eradicated with more thorough vaccicnation. (Don't want to open that can of worms, though.) I'm not the one with the skills to argue in favor of it if it does exist. As a side note, I alomost died of measles, so I greeted the development of the vaccine with exclamations of joy. But that's neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron and Pburka. Such outbreaks happen all the time. There is not sufficient evidence of this one being actually notable even if it was (sensationally) reported in the news. --Eleassar my talk 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is articles like this one that make me wish our notability guidelines were revamped. The notion that something popping up once or twice in the news means we should have an article on it is absurd. There are many events that occur routinely and are not of any particular note, but local news outlets are bound to have a blurb on them all the same. Arkyan 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find a single blurb in any local news outlet about the 1347 bubonic outbreak in Genua in Google News Archives: [14]. Thus, non-notable. ¨23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge into MMR vaccine controversy. Corvus cornixtalk 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a textbook example of the application of WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Phil, above, hit it on the nose. This is really a local news item. Such items can be notable, but I don't see a lot of evidence that this one is. Tim Ross (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to my mind not notable and not encyclopedic. A short burst of media interest in an otherwise unimportant event that isn't really important or remotely unusual. RMHED (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Article needs lots of work, but consensus is that the sources are sufficient evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thameside Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Thameside Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable former pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Page was previously deleted in October 2007. Not sure if this is a G4 tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally think it's a G4, given that it was deleted on the basis of lack of notability. Rapido (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has references to show notability. Just because they are not online it doesn't invalidate them. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Profusion of cites easily establish notability, although the article could use a real rewrite, and someone to convert all those ugly cites to refs. Ford MF (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm 106[edit]

Storm 106 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable local pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't find any sources for this --neon white talk 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous name makes it difficult to search for sources, but after looking for a bit I'm confident there aren't any to be had. I'll happily change my mind if someone introduces some secondary coverage into the article. Ford MF (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rinse FM[edit]

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

non-notable local pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article has multiple verfiable second party sources, including detailed coverage by Pitchfork Media and in New Statesman. --neon white talk 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced article that demonstrates its subject's notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio of http://www.board-crazy.co.uk/skateboarding-sponsorship.php. --MCB (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding Sponsorship[edit]

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

Uncited opinion piece, essay and original research. Blowdart | talk 14:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine
have it deleted
see if I care
I just wanted to make the information more accessible to others and what better way than to Wikipedia it
I mean it's not an important aspect of skateboarding, I mean, I should know seeing as I am a Skateboarder and sponsorship is not what I skate for - it's just that I get asked alot about the subject at hand. People ask me about alot of things and usually just refer them to wikipedia and because I've been asked about this alot I decided to create this article.
PS this is the first time i have done anything on wikipedia except for viewing content so cut us some slack and make suggestions as to how the information should be presented because I've never done this before...it's a learning curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that there should be an article on skateboard sponsorships in the wikipedia database —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

either communicate with me so i can actually understand what up or otherwise change the article so it fits your criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if your just out to make me look stupid then your doing a great job, I must say, well done, no,no,you've really outdone yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well i guess i'm just that incompetent huh? how bout i give you a game of skate for it - i win and the article stays, you win and you can toss it.
if you don't know what a "game of skate" is then you should wikipedia it, thats what i tell everyone else to do - but only because i know that it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do some research and make the necessary changes - show me how it's done--Internal Terrorist (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original essay, WP:NOT a how-to guide. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely OR, essentially a how to guide which WP is not. To the suggestion that if it fails the policies we do research and improve it, I instead suggest to Internal Terrorist that he/she reads up on our policies and improves if if they want the article to stay. Personally I couldn't care less about the topic and so don't care if it goes. That's not me using WP:IDONTLIKEIT, merely why I'm not going to use my time to improve an article like it.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original essay, not encyclopedic content. I'd suggest the author consider expanding this and submitting it as an article to his/her favorite skateboarding magazine; that's how a lot of us writers first get into the business. (It's not profitable, but it can be fun.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. To the author: We're not saying that what's in the article isn't good advice or that it's not worthwhile information, it's just that an encyclopedia isn't really the place for it. --Finngall talk 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Jackie North[edit]

Radio Jackie North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable pirate station from long ago Rapido (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"from long ago" ? Perhaps you can explain the policy of WP:LIKE_REALLY_TOO_LONG_AGO_DUDE for our benefit? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP RJN and MAR were two highly notable pirate radio stations from the "second wave" of UK pirate radio (Medium Wave, late-70s, early '80s) in the North West. They broadcast regularly, reliably and for a number of years. Their core DJs were stable and long-established, with a considerable following. Their coverage was Merseyside, a large population that gave both of them a significant audience. Both also had an appreciable non-radio presence, with involvement with local record / merchandise shops, local club nights etc. In the period, there were many pirate stations that came and went with little real significance or notability - not these two though. In the context of "UK pirate radio", I fail to see how a station could be any more notable than either of these. Andy Dingley (talk)
Please provide a valid argument for why this is notable according to policy, simply declaring it notable because you believe it to be isn't enough. Bare in mind the criteria for notability has nothing to do with any of the points you made above. It needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --neon white talk 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites six separate websites that all describe pretty much the same historical version of the station's career. Some include audio recordings of the stations themselves. Now these either demonstrate the existence of the pirate stations, as described, or else they are falsehoods. Simultaneous synchronised falsehoods which we have no reason to suppose. There is also the widely circulated pirate radio fanzine of the period, Soundwaves. I'd upload copies to illustrate the article, except for Wikipedia's strong copyright policies. If such a station existed, then it is notable according to the current consensus for the encyclopedic nature of UK pirate stations (and if it's not, please comment so to an AfD such as this). Now for low-budget illegal events of 25 years ago, that's not bad going. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me again, is the AfD for lack of notability, or for reliable sources? There seems to be some flip-flopping here as to which it is. These sources, if we believe them, establish notability perfectly well. Now admittedly there's a problem - they're not the highest of quality, admittedly. If anyone has anything better, then we should of course use it. However the content they contain, if believed, covers our notability requirement.
Now WP:RS is a separate problem. Tag them as "references needed" by all means! However when six separate low-quality but independent resources express general agreement over a history, then why should we have cause to doubt it? They aren't flat-earth theories. Non-exceptional claims don't require exceptional sources.
Thirdly, why are we assuming that these sources are "low quality" anyway? Wikipedia consensus has no problem with peer-group fandom of established communities in a vast many pages over in the anime or horror worlds. Yes, they're ugly HTML, yes, they're hosted on unfashionable host sites. Neither of those though should strongly influence the credit we place on them - that would just be elitist geek-chauvinism, not an objective judgement on their content. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the two issues are linked: WP:N states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." So, turning it around, if there are insufficient reliable third-party references, the article falls to be defined as not notable. Voilà. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.98.215 (talk) [reply]
If we can resolve the concerns over the quality of the cited sources, then the stations are notable. There is not, as far as I can see, any issue of whether the stations are non-notable _despite_ the sources (i.e. they were too minor a station) ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No one has yet explained why the many internet hits for this station are from "unreliable" sources. Ford MF (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If merely pointing to WP:RS is considered insufficient, then you will no doubt excuse me for directly citing the overview: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." As anybody can create a website, contents published in personal websites are "not reliable" unless its authors are recognised as experts in their field, which certainly does not appear to be the case. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Please direct me to the list of recognized experts. Ford MF (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to UK pirate radio. Cannot find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for a seperate article. Only source I could find is here from the Liverpool Echo. There is enough there to add some to UK pirate radio or to make a seperate article on Pirate Radio in Merseyside but not really enough for standalone article. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation if someone can find such coverage on paper or elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Elenore[edit]

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

Very non-notable pirate; 10 Google hits! Rapido (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Perfectly notable pirate in its period of significance. As that pre-dated popular use of teh intawebs by 15 years, counting web hits is (perhaps sadly so) not a good way to measure notability of the pirate stations of this era. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Again, another non-notable radio station. The citations in the article are to personal websites or fansites, which fail WP:RS. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course, online references are easier for WP editors to check, but it would nevertheless be acceptable if sourced from paper references. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Alpine[edit]

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

non-notable local pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Again, another non-notable radio station. The citations in the article are to personal websites or fansites, which fail WP:RS. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete by PeaceNT, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Adamopoulos[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Unreferenced. A Google search for "Peter Adamopoulos" Panathinaikos produces zero hits. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nwokeji[edit]

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

Contested prod (no explanation). Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Article can easily be restored if/when he does. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Spellcast (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damjan Krajcic[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Unreferenced. A Google search for Damjan Krajcic provides only one relevant link - a Bebo profile for the subject of the article. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyland Alternative Radio[edit]

Merseyland Alternative Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable local pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable sources to be found. --neon white talk 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you are referring to but currently the article has no assertions of notability. --neon white talk 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites three websites and one printed reference that verify the existence of the station. Now I'm sure the wording can be improved in places, but a list of relevant links labelled "references" is generally agreed on Wikipedia to be an indication of supporting evidence for verifiability. Do you dispute the existence of these stations, the notability of individual stations within the world of pirate radio, or do you object to pirate radio as a topic in general? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the article has is a few links to self published and highly unreliable sources that are not evidence of notability. If this station has not had significant second or third party coverage in verifiable sources, it isnt notable. --neon white talk 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, check your back-copies of Soundwaves. An independent printed magazine of the period that makes many references to these particular stations. There are technical (copyright) problems in distributing this material further through WP, but it has been verified by at least one editor. Verification in the future isn't easy from so few sites, but nor is it impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid arguement. --neon white talk 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an argument at all, it's an attempt to organise what is clearly a related discussion into one place, to the benefit of all interested parties. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see the value in focusing on the editors who raised the AFD. Can you expand on your desire to keep this article? Is it based on the article or the editor that raised teh AFD?
These aren't self-published sources, they're fansites. They don't have the solid reputation of Nature, but neither do they raise the CoI concerns that underly WP:SPS Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think you sincerely believe the station is notable, as with the rest above in today's AfD. I take your point about SPS and WP:COI. I would however point out that I did also say "personal websites", which these fansites are. Unfortunately these do not satisfy WP:RS. We need better sources than these. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WP:RS express a problem with "personal websites", as you term them? "Self-published", as per WP:RS, is not the same thing at all. AFAIK, none of these are self-published sites. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The policies say similar things. WP:V#Sources states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this pirate radio station is notable. Lacks verifiable 3rd party references. There is mention of fanzine but insufficient information about that source to verify it. There have been a lot of publications called Soundwaves, we'll need more that the title to verify this. Doesn't appear to be a hoax, but it also doesn't appear to be notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Spellcast (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Garcia[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Sourceless article. No relevant hits for Googling "Andrew Garcia" "real madrid". ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. Article was rewritten by me as a page on the Rachel Proctor album. Consensus is that non-charting songs are usually not notable, and I have provided a hatnote pointing to the Beach Boys album that contains their "Where I Belong". Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where I Belong[edit]

Where I Belong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, didn't chart, didn't receive any awards. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, owing to no consensus, although this leaned slightly towards delete. Further discussion of a redirect on the article's talk page might help hone consensus.. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Socha[edit]

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

NN replacement actress in a Broadway musical — MusicMaker5376 13:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As per my comment on the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (people): The standard for replacement actors seems quite inconsistent with the standard for athletes, who are notable merely if they "have competed in a fully professional league". Even if one reads "fully professional" in the most restrictive sense of only including the top-level professional leagues, this would still include any rookie or journeyman athlete called up on one or more occasion to play in the place of an injured veteran player. IMHO, an actor who permanently takes over a leading role in a major Broadway production is surely more notable than a rookie player for a Major League Baseball team. There are, after all, many more Major League Baseball players at any given time than there are leading actor/actresses on Broadway and other venues of similar stature. This page, and others for actors in replacement lead roles, should not be deleted unless it is determined that the standard for athletes must be tightened in order to eliminate this obvious inequity. Rhsatrhs (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the place to change the guidelines; this is to determine whether or not this article satisfies notability. Is your keep vote based upon current guidelines or guidelines you'd like to see changed? — MusicMaker5376 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am neutral as to whether the standard for actors should be changed, but I vote to keep -- for now -- on the grounds that I believe that the article meets basic criteria for presumption of notability: "presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject,", and this presumption should -- temporarily -- over-ride the more specific standard for actors until it is reviewed for consistency with other specific standards (e.g., the standard for athletes). I simply believe it is better to err, temporarily, in favor of keeping information based on the more permissive general standard in order to avoid having two sub-communities of Wikipedia going in radically different directions on notability.Rhsatrhs (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to reduce my opinion to that, that is your right. It is also my right to reduce your opinion to "there is zero possibility that the standard needs to evolve in response to the opinions of the Wikipedia community, therefore it should be enforced immediately and without question." But I don't think it's particularly productive for either of us to de-value one another's opinions that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhsatrhs (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my point is that this is a DELETION DISCUSSION, not a discussion of the guideline itself. I understand that you're relatively new to WP, and I'm trying to get you to understand that there are different fora for different discussions. Nothing is likely to be changed in the guideline based upon your argument here. The discussion on THIS table is whether or not to keep Alexandra Socha based upon the guidelines as they currently stand, NOT whether or not the guidline should be altered. — MusicMaker5376 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what qualifies as "relatively new to Wikipedia" in your mind, but I have been an occasional contributor for more than five years. If that's relatively new to you, so be it. I know that this is a DELETION DISCUSSION. My vote is KEEP. I am simultaneously engaging in the discussion of the WP:ENTERTAINER policy in the appropriate forum, and I felt a need to also explain my overall position here. My vote is KEEP here because I believe that it is inappropriate to take actions under the existing policy at this time. Is "DELAY THIS VOTE" a valid vote? That's really what I am saying. Delay not just this vote, but all deletion votes based on WP:ENTERTAINER until the community makes a better effort at rational and consistent notability definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhsatrhs (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have fewer than 500 edits. That's "relatively new", no matter how long you've been editing. (That's not meant to dismiss your contribution to this discussion or the one at Notability. I'm just saying that 500 edits may not make you terribly conversant on procedure -- not that your opinion should carry less weight.) — MusicMaker5376 20:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. I tend to limit most of my contributions to certain areas, and I have only rarely participated in policy discussions. I tend to be a pragmatist and consensus-seeker, who understands that WP can not be all things to all people, and I believe that the best policies are ones that encourage participation by those serious enough to do high quality work. Inconsistent application of principles discourages serious participants. Deletion of articles in one area where there happens to be a strong standard for notability, while proliferating them in another area where there is a much looser standard, discourages serious participants. Looking for a middle ground makes sense to me. Allowing this article to stand for a reasonable amount of time, until a middle ground is found or rejected, makes sense to me. Rhsatrhs (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there's a disparity between Entertainer and Athlete, but this is not the place to figure it out. As for keeping this article until the guidelines are revised, since the AfD process has been begun, tabling the discussion is not really an option, unless more editors think the article should be kept based on current guidelines. If the guidelines are revised and Ms. Socha passes notability at that point, it's not like we're losing a whole wealth of knowledge by deleting the article now. I'm not opposed to re-creation at a later date if she passes Entertainer. — MusicMaker5376 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. I agree that there's an inequity in regard to athletes, but widening the notability standard for other professions isn't the solution. Instead, the notaility standard for athletes should be tightened. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - nice accomplishments for a newbie but still fails Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER#Entertainers. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she's a lead actress in what was probably the most acclaimed American stage production of the last year (which, having seen, I feel comfortable saying is utter crap). She doesn't fulfill WP:ENTERTAINER because she didn't have the role first? What kind of logic is that? Ford MF (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And wow, now that I'm looking at it, the Spring Awakening article kinda sucks. But it is appropriately major regardless. Ford MF (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spring Awakening. Probably just about fails the relevant notability guideline at this time with her only major performance being in Spring Awakening. The article can then be easily restarted from the redirect once she has more roles or more significant coverage in reliable sources - at the moment only one of the sources seems to provide significant coverage not the multiple sources required by the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spring Awakening - trivial media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep but please clean up using suggestions below or elsewhere. Content is clearly needed, just not arranged as it is. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toonami glossary[edit]

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

List of un-notable minutae about a channel programming strand. As the tag states, reads like a fansite and it's doubtful if any of the content here could be incorporated into any other articles without it being of minor note. treelo talk 13:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Actually, this existed in the amin Toonami article until that article got a little big owing to the content, so this was split out. At its core it should be something closer a list of chrarcters page, but that would require both a keep consensus and an agreement to write the page, niether of which I expect from this afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it should be renamed something other than 'glossary', since a glossary is not what wikipedia is about. But the content belongs here. The only concern I have is notability, but I'm an inclusionist. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as advertisement for non-notable technology.  Sandstein  18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System[edit]

The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertisement Crowsnest (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The page has only links to own web-site, no reliable references, and had a prod nomination earlier today. Seems to promote some (patented) original research. Crowsnest (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly promotional piece for non-notable irrigation system thingy. Not everything that's patented is notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the originator of the page and have added links to all relevant sites and notations including the original patent. I can't see how the patent violates Wikipedia guidelines. The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System is quantum leap in our ability to extract energy from the ocean and in my opinion should be represented here in Wikipedia. All of the information is true and verified in other parts of Wikipedia. I am new to this form of recording of information and was surprised to see in one "editors" comments that he felt that this patent did not represent something notable and therefore should be deleted. This is neither accurate nor in the spirit of an open encyclopedia. It's not as if by its inclusion other things must be left out. (AeguorAgricola (talk)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeguorAgricola (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The patent in itself is not a problem, or violating WP guidelines. But, to my opinion, the main issues are: the fact that the article seems to advertise this patented concept by linking to the website for its promotion, has no reliable references (see WP:V and WP:OR, links to other Wikipedia articles don't count with respect to verifiability), and is not notable from an encyclopedic point of view, see WP:N. Further, you may have a look at WP:COI, to find out whether you have a possible conflict of interest. Crowsnest (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional comment I have now included a link to European Commission's Directorate-general for energy and transport in which the Tidal irrigation and Electrical System is an approved concept, that fulfills all scientific requirements. The link is however for a company "seavac" which is promoting the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeguorAgricola (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of where this system is currently in use. Therefore no hint of notability. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional comment The project is indeed in the experimental phase but there are several renewable energy systems which are not currently in use and yet they are included in Wikipedia for example blue energy. The individual components of the Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System are all well understood and verified. That they will work in conjunction is common sense and is in no doubt. Of course, there will be some interference by one system with another, and the degree to which this will occur is unknown, but that will only be able to be determined on a case by case basis and depends entirely on which resources the operator wishes to generate. AeguorAgricola (talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' it is true that Tidal power systems have a long history - as proposals-- and are notable--and consequently have an article, along with particular articles for some specific systems in specific places that have been implemented. This particular proposal, however, has no sources for anything resembling notability. DGG (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment Except, of course, that it is patented. Patents are only granted if the science actually works and the idea is original and it is an improvement over existing designs which hope to exploit a principle. Are you saying that the US patent office isn't notable? Are you saying that you (DGG) know better about the science than the patent examiner or the scientists the European Commission's Directorate-general for energy and transport? AeguorAgricola (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably notable enough, but needs to be rewritten to remove advertising and to find neutral sources. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment OK, I have rewritten the article to take out advertising. Other sources seem thin on the ground.AeguorAgricola (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sons of Eilaboun[edit]

The Sons of Eilaboun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. No significant coverage in independent 3rd party sources. Fails WP:MOVIE (as the only non-blog external link which goes into detail about it is a press release and I don't believe this counts as a "major" award) and has only 64 ghits in English, 84 ghits in Arabic. Was originally created by the director himself (Hishamzr (talk · contribs), who also created an article on himself and added himself to the list of notable people on {{Arab citizens of Israel}}) before being speedied, then re-created by a possible sockpuppet (see here). In response to the claims that I only want the article deleted because I'm Jewish and politically biased, (a) I'm not Jewish, and (b) I'm usually accused of being pro-Palestinian. Make of that what you will. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers of ghits provided by Number 57 are from Google.co.uk, which reflects only the UK part of the Internet. The real ghits from Google.com are: Hisham Zreiq (530 ghits) or Hisham Zrake (1700 ghits) as of today. Other arguments of Number 57 are mostly based on his personal opinions and believes and cannot be considered as objective. Moreover, the case really smells very political. Dear administrators, please take your time and efforts to analyze this case closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordka (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the figures are pretty much the same for Google.com - 74 for Zrake and 84 for Zreiq. The difference is that you need to scroll through to the last page to see how many real hits there are. Even so, most of them are from either Wikpedia-sourced sites, or social networking/self-published ones. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your calculation of ghits is not correct. The number of results displayed on the very first page of Google search is the number of unique web pages, which mention the searched term. You do not need to go through all pages to reveal the "real" number of ghits. Google's optimization algorithm uses multiple criteria and may collapse the results of the output as you go deeper into the search results. This is an optimization trick and does not mean that the other results are "not real". You can still see them if you click the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link, which turns off this filter. Mordka (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The expanded list is merely duplicate hits on the same websites. Anyway, as I said, most of the hits are from Wikipedia-linked sites or social networking. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are notable actors. Ilan Pappé features in the first half of the film. The second half of the film consists of interviews of survivors of this military action. Of course survivors are not notable in the Hollywoods view. Then again, there are many presentations of the documentary all over the world going on now. All these are reflected (in English, Arabic, Hebrew) in press. The movie won an award, right it is not Oscar. Mordka (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a documentary of people who have suffered a war crime. Many documentaries focus on unknown people to tell some kind of story or illustrate the human experience. The fact that the victims being interviewed are not "notable actors" is completely irrelevant, what is relevant is that they are victims and witnesses to terrible and historic events. Silence is complicity. Peteskitoo (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely non-notable - NN director/producer, no IMDB entry, no notable publications mentioning the film. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to get an IMDB entry takes months, and the film was newly released, I am sure it will come soon. And about publications, how about the most important newspaper in Egypt AL-AHRAM established in 1875: The article "Because it is our right" And Aljazeera see Translation to English Ilan Pappe is a very important Israeli historian, and he is featured in the film. If you have no entry for the Award that does not mean it is not important, it means you should add it, I will not because you guys probably will deleted, because it is a Palestinian award. If you take a look at the award link http://www.badil.org/Publications/Press/2008/press457-08.htm you will see that: “The festival will be covered by various media outlets, and will be broadcast live on several satelite stations. Several notable cultural and political figures, as well as representatives of Badil and the selection comittees will present the winners with their prizes.” watched it personally on Aljazeera live. I wonder why the users trying to delete the film are all connected to Israel some how! I think the film is being vandalized by pro Israelis for the fact it is Palestinian "Hishamzr (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Keep The film got a first prize from Badil (which itself is too well-known to ignore) Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC) PS: to the editors who make personal attacks on пﮟოьεԻ: please stop at once! Though I disagree with him on this occasion I do not doubt his good intentions, and I think I can say пﮟოьεԻ is considered a fair-minded admin in this mine-field of a topic called Palestine/Israel-issues. As they say in football: go for the ball, not the man![reply]
  • Keep Don't forget that it's a documentary, based on the real and confirmed facts. A well known historian features it, as well as survivors of the historical events. The film is essential for the history of the place where the events took place. The film is covered in international press and features in multiple international festivals. It won an award. Mordka (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesn't take months to get IMDB entries - they list based on pre-production rumors. This seems too much like a self-promotional vehicle - general notability states that there must be significant coverage. The first hit for Zreiq is WP (not good), third hit in Zreiq's Amazon profile (even worse), and the fourth is Zreiq's Facebook! So no one has heard of him. however, let's see what his film does - WP:FILM says there should be reviews. There are not. There should be non-trivial articles, screenings, etc., five years after, and there's no indication when the film was made, so none of these guidelines are fulfillable. There's also no notable awards or preservation noted. It was likely first screened only six or so weeks ago. It may become notable, but there's simply nothing available to show that at this moment. MSJapan (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what User talk:MSJapan is not correct, you should look for Hisham Zrake (and Zreiq), the claim that no 3d party press coverage is not correct, the film is covered Al-Ahram, Aljazeer and arabic newspappers. and the artist is covered in Arabic anf German press NordbayrischerKurier, NordbayerischeNachrichten, FränkischeSchweiz and kultura Extra. and this is delfpromoting artciles in very respected newspapers. For a new entry in IMDB takes 6 weeks, check there website, it is his first film so it will take at least 6 weeks, and he is a well established artist as a visual artist, and won a very important Award (Not to ignore Badil a very respected and important organization), the film was released in Sept. 2007 (not few weeks ago) and in such short time to get an award for a first film effort is alone notable enough. As an Arab I know that Hisham is a very poular arab name, and Family name Zreiq (also speled Zreik, zrake, Zriek) is a common family name in the arab world, and many notable people cary this family name Constantine Zreik ( diplomat), RafatZreik (a very good photographer), NesrinZreik (pop singer) and Elia Zureik ( a thinker and photographer), Hisham Abbas (pop singer), Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik (caliph = King). so if he edits such pages will you clam that hishamzr is Hisham Abbas or Hisham bn Abd al-Malik. this does not make since.
  • I would check the motives of User:Number 57 ( a fan of Israel and speaks hebrew), User:MSJapan ( speakes Yiddish), User:Ynhockey an Israeli, this users ignore all the arguments, and just want to delete the article. The Palestinian history and fingers are always targeted, and this is bad for Wikipedia. Arab48 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this is the only edit that Arab48 (talk · contribs) has ever made. Off-wiki canvassing perhaps? пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep The film was recently advertised in a full page ad in The Oregonian newspaper and was seen by over 200 people at a recent event in Portland, Oregon, May 31st, 2008. It was well received. It deals with real people wanting to tell their dramatic story about a traumatic historical event. The film is timely and newsworthy and covers the history of events, the results of which still haunts the Middle East today. The deleters seem to require special circumstances for information to be available to people, using as their focus arbitrary standards of "popularity" and "relevence" that are guaranteed to help suppress the voices of the powerless and the oppressed. Isn't it enough that real people have real stories to tell about important historical events, that these people are at the end of their lives and that it is a story worth telling and worth hearing? I definitely think so. In addition, the notable, ground-breaking Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has an important role in narrating this film and he is worth hearing by himself. User:Peteskitoo —Preceding comment was added at 15:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Peteskitoo (talk · contribs) has made no contributions to Wikipedia for over 2 years before this comment. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep The film makers should be given the time to ensure the film passes WP:MOVIE criteria. Films take a long time to get rolling - I was in a film that has been on Wikipedia since almost the day after principal photography ended, some 18 months before the film was finished. That film was never considered for deletion, probably because it included on camera and voice over work by noted celebrities. Documentaries are extremely important in today's corporate media culture, and Wikipedia is one of the few sources of information that are not driven by special interests. That said, the synopsis should be more journalistic and neutral.jeanmariesimpson (talk · contribs)
    • I don't understand. The film has been released for more than six months, and it still doesn't meet the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it has been released for 6 months isn't really relevant. Documentaries take, sometimes, years to rise to the consciousness of the masses. Again, I think the synopsis must be revised to reflect a more journalistic framework, however, I find the documentary's content timely and an important contribution to the discussion surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact that we're having this conversation, in my view, points up the intensity of interest in films such as The Sons of Eilaboun. jeanmariesimpson (talk · contribs)
      • So if it hasn't "risen to the conciousness of the masses" it doesn't pass WP:MOVIE; it's not Wikipedia's job to publicise documentaries, and to claim that it might one day be notable is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The fact that we are having this debate shows nothing except the fact that one person objected to its proposed deletion. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of significant subjects are not known to the masses, but are included on Wikipedia, including many obscure films. I think The Sons of Eilaboun demonstrates relevance and highlights events that should be discussed. If you are uncomfortable with the description of the events documented in the film, why not work on neutralizing the synopsis yourself, rather than proposing the deletion of the entire subject? jeanmariesimpson (talk · contribs)
  • Keep According to WP:MOVIE criteria under the title “Other evidence of notability” paragraph number 3 says “The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.” That means the film meet the criteria Mr. Number57, many links in Arabic take about the film showing in Arab cities and villages in Israel (e.g. [see second paragraph in Aljazeera.net article] ), and Badil the Palestinian organization that gave the film the Award has committed that “the winning documentaries will be broadcast on Arab satellite channels”. And will distribute the film. See Arabic and English sources bellow.
    • The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE: General principles 3 & 4
      • 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making.
      • 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
      • The Award from Badil, and Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive. (see links bellow)
  • Badil links:
 http://www.badil.org/awda-award/award5.html
 http://www.badil.org/Publications/Press/2008/press465-08.htm
  • Links Articles about the film shows in Palestinian villages and towns (Arabic):
 http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/99FDA844-B3BE-4AE9-894D-4FFDB9CF5EE6.htm

JFCK (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • JFCK (talk · contribs) has no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep Al-Ahram is sufficient sourcing for notability of a film. Rejecting such sources is outright cultural bias. DGG (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This note is for Number57: your small notes about other users is really a bad style and shows you have no case but vandalism. Read the next Note.
  • Note From Wikipedia about admins like Number57:
  • Criticism of Wikipedia - Administrator actions: "In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted criticism that administrators of the site, who have "special powers to lock down vulnerable articles from further editing, and temporarily block problem users from making changes to the site",[107] have occasionally abused those powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place." JFCK (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep First point, you have no prov that hishamzr is Hisham Zreiq, because Hisham is a popular Arabic name, and many Arabs are called Hisham, and I don't believe hishamzr is Hisham Zreiq. and Zreiq family name is an old arbic family name goes back 2000 years, it is writen differently in Latin letters, and there was a Syrian thinker and diplomat with the same family name (Constantine Zreik), and a Palestinian professor and thinker living in the USA (Elia Zureik), Rafat Zreik a photographer, Nesrin Zreik an Arab pop woman singer, even there is another Hisham zreiq spilled Hesham Zreik from Syria, and probably many Hisham zreiq, or zureik or zreik or zriek. this is not an argument Hisham zreiq in the arab world is like Bill Clark in the english speaking world.
  • Second point Badil and there award are respectful, very important and notable award, this is more than enough to keep the article.
  • Third point many Arabic press wrote about the film and artist (e.g. Al-Ahram and Aljazeer), there are german press that wrote about the artist Hisham zreiq, (e.g. Nordbayrischer Kurier on 17-01-2006 and 26-07-2004, Nordbayerische Nachrichten on 21.01.2006, Fränkische Schweiz on 24-07-2004, kultura Extra on Oct. 2004) some of the articles can be found in the following links:
  • Fourth point according to IMDB website, for a new entry it takes 6 weeks and some times more.
  • Fifth point and first screening according to Arabic press was on Sept. 2007 and not few week ago.
  • Sixth point Hisham Zreiq (Zrake) is a very important Palestenian artist, just take a look at his page, He is not famous as Picasso, but still he is a recognized artist that exhibited his work in many countries, and received a German award in 2004 for his art.
  • Last point it seams what people are writing is only attacks at hishamzr, and not the film, so it seams to it is a targeted attack, it could be that the claim that the reason for the attacks is the origin of the film and the fact it is Palestinian. I use Wiki pedia for long time, and many articles about films and other stuff are less important than this film keep to exist with no problem, it seams to be people are trying to find excuses to delete it, and ignore all arguments. what you are doing will harm the credibility of Wikipedia. 87.175.1.42 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE:
    • General principles
      • The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making.
        • It was awarded the Badil Al-Awda award, a very important and respectable organization and Award.
      • The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
        • The film was preserved in the Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award. and if I am not mistaken it was preserved in the Aljazera archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award, and according to Badil website was shown in many Arab TV stations, that means a copy will be preserved in there archive .

Wikipedia will not publicize the documentary; it just gives information about it as it gives information about other Israeli films and documentaries that no one heard about or received any awards. Anyway TV stations will not search for films in Wikipedia, neither people interested in the films. Their source will be imdb or all movies. So you have no excuses now пﮟოьεԻ 57.

With respect M.jish (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • M.jish (talk · contribs) has no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Excuse me Number57 this is irrelevant, what matters are facts about the film and not the users. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ++[reply]
      • It does matter because there has quite clearly been an off-wiki canvassing campaign to get this article kept. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User: Number 57Please look at the facts, I will do a research my self, and judge the film not the users. But to tell you the truth it looks that the film meets the WP:MOVIE criterias. I am my self a new user, but I use Wikipedia for the last year to look for information. FriedenMann (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some posts on this page which I highly disapprove of. Firstly: please stop all personal attacks -nobody gives more "weight" to their argument by attacking another person; it is quite the opposite, in fact. Secondly: All those sock-puppets and/or meat-puppet that have suddenly appeared her to vote: Pleas stop it. If you have never edited on Wikipedia before, then coming here just to vote carry absolute NO weight whatsoever. User:Number 57 is quite right in noting down for such "votes" that they have no other contributions. IMO they should be striked out/removed. I myself voted "keep" (see above), and I stand by that. But I feel increasingly unwell about the company I have gotten into :-( Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I did a research about the film "The sons of Eilaboun", and checked the links given by some of the users, I disagree with some of there styles, but never the less what they write is true. The Artist got a German award for his art in 2004, and the film got an Award from Badil, a very respected Palestinian organization. The film and artist were covered by important press like Al-Ahram, Aljazeera, NordbayrischerKurier, NordbayerischeNachrichten, FränkischeSchweiz. And according to Badil the film is preserved in the Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive. The artist exhibited his works in important galleries and museums like the "Land of Israel Museum, Tel-Aviv, Israel" and "Kunst und Museum, Hollfeld, Germany". And I think the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria "General principles" 3 & 4 (see above other users) and meets “Other evidence of notability” 3. And I think his art is really wonderful and should not be ignored. I found from the research I did that the film was shown in many Palestinian towns and villages, as will in California, Oregon in the USA, Melbourne in Australia, Montreal in Canada. And I think in many other places that cannot be found in the internet. FriedenMann (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • FriedenMann (talk · contribs) has no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what!!! look at the facts the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria FriedenMann (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? As Huldra says, it's quite obvious this debate has been the victim of a meatpuppet campaign. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I agree with Huldra about the style, but the film article what matters in this debate. I heard about the film because it will be screen in my home town next month, I looked in Google, and found the article in wikipedia with the note to be deleted. I was convinced by the facts and I will go to see the screening. But I think the article should not be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriedenMann (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JFCK. Not crazy about the apparent sock-puppeteering going on, but appears to satisfy the letter and the spirit of WP:FILM. Ford MF (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film meets WP:MOVIE criteria for sure, and the film and artist Hisham Zreiq (Zrake) are notable. 217.194.34.103 (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seriously fails WP:MOVIE and the lack of an IMDB entry is a clear problem. More reason to delete is that the article was written by the movie's creator with a clear conflict of interest - if proven notable later, it can be re-created. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • if it "seriously fails" this criteria, then you should be able to provide specific reasons, seriously. The movie has been show around at various events and has been seen by hundreds of people and won awards. However, it is a new movie, so I don't see why this lack of an entry in the IMDB is a problem, especially because the subject matter is a documentary of people who have suffered tragedy, I would think their suffering should take precedence over bureaucratic scorekeeping. Peteskitoo (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone's "suffering" is not a reason to keep an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is certainly a better reason than that historical documentation be excised into the memory hole because of a missing IMDB entry Peteskitoo (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep owing to no consensus, with a slight tilt towards deletion. Note, some comments asking for both delete and merge were contradictory. Strongly suggest running this AfD again, clearly reminding editors to ask for only one of the following: merge, keep, delete or redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Lewis on The X Factor[edit]

Leona Lewis on The X Factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is pointless and offers extraneous information that a user needn't know. It is sloppily written and presented, and to date, has only been edited by one user alone, offering fanatic and sometimes subjective content in the article Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Well of course I am going to disagree. It does not offer 'pointless' information (I'd argue that no information is pointless, but that's beside the point). Leona Lewis is now an international star and many people are interested in her. I wrote it as many of the details about her career-start on The X Factor have been misrepresented in other press articles, and then promulgated over and over again - by going to the source (ie the quotes from the programmes themselves) and setting them out in this article, I hoped to help stop that and to give some sense of her progress through the competition. On Leona's YouTube videos people have asked questions to which I have tried to give the answers in the article, such as why was she wearing red poppy on the 11 November show, how many standing ovations did Simon Cowell give (apparently he never gives them on American Idol) and so on. I really do feel strongly that there is a call for an article like this - that's why I have spent hours writing it.
I'm gutted that you think it's badly presented - I spent a lot of time trying to work out the best way to deal with the shows, judges comments, songs sung etc. As for sloppy writing, well that's why I was hoping a collaborative encyclopaedia would help make it better.
And it's only been in main space for a couple of days and then with an 'in use' tag for a few hours this morning as I added inline citations as requested. So it's not that surprising it hasn't been edited.
And just because I'm a fan doesn't make me a bad person. I want people to help me make the article better, that's all. Leonapedia (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion the article as it currently stands has some POV and original research issues but they are not so intrinsic to its structure that they could not be fixed. The individual in question is clearly notable and information on this stage in their career should definitely be included in any encyclopaedia that covers her. Having said that, personally I think the level of detail here is excessive - it is largely based on primary sources indicating that Wikipedia is giving the topic a greater level of coverage than the reliable secondary sources on which an article should usually be based. I think the topic can be sufficiently covered in Leona Lewis and The X Factor (UK series 3) both of which already include some of the content of this page but that's really an editorial decision not for AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete With all due respect, Leonapedia, Wikipedia is not a medium for putting right information that is presented in the media. It is not for addressing questions posed by users on YouTube, nor is Wikipedia for serving the interests of fans. Don't get me wrong, I am also a huge fan of Leona, and think being a fan is certainly not a bad thing. But we must remember that this is an encyclopedia, offering factual, sparing and necessary information. The main Leona Lewis article is deemed sufficient as an entry for her and we need not go into the very specifics of what happened on the show, week in, week out. Apologies for any offence caused. It's not personal :) Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the factual aspect is exactly what I'm about! Mistakes are made in other articles covering her, and if we get it right here, when people come to Wikipedia as a source (as they do) they will get the correct information at least. Also, I pulled together all the programme references, offcial website nots about her etc so that people can go straight to the contemporary sources rather than having to google them.
Also, couldn't disagree more that we have to offer sparing information. Where on earth does it say this? I believe quite the opposite, in fact - we're a paperless encyclopaedia, so why not embrace it - use the potential of the web to make the most ginormous encyclopaedia ever. I wrote the article because I came looking for something like this and found nothing. And it's an extra to her article, not a replacement - surely all enhancements are a good thing? I quite take on board the criticism of the non-subjectivity, and was hoping that another editor or editors would beat the fanboyness out of the article, as clearly I can't see too objectively myself - but please not to ditch it altogether. I really do believe there is a call for this article, even if it has to be pruned a lot.
And lastly, who decides what is 'necessary information'? That's a very scary concept, for all sorts of reasons. Leonapedia (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Scrub the week by week details, along with the other things based on primary sources because that article already exists and if there is anything left that is useful it should be merged into Leona Lewis. Jim Miller (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete, leaving out the week-by-week details, as per Jim Miller's comments above. -- The Anome (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion The one thing I will say in favour of a separate article like this, is that Lewis, as her main page correctly states, "has had the most successful launch of any television talent show contestant ever". Many industry professionals say she is the most talented reality television contestant ever to emerge. Her winning song on The X Factor is a world record breaker. A case might be made that her journey is unique and can notably be expanded upon, but whether that is enough to keep the page as it currently stands is a different matter. ~ smb 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The X Factor (UK series 3); seealso exists, ya know! Sceptre (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete after Merge of any adequately sourced relevant material into The X Factor (UK series 3) and Leona Lewis. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful info to either Leona's page or X Factor. CRocka05 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then delete, per User:CRocka05. BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subarticles like this are appropriate when detail approaches a certain length, and given the prominence of the performer and the show I don't feel there's any reasonable doubt regarding the notability of the content. Everyking (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Thank-you Everyking. As I said on the Leona Lewis article talk page, I made this a separate article as I felt to have this much detail on the Leona Lewis page would unbalance it, as necessarily everything on that page is covered in fairly sparse detail as there is so much to cover. I asked for help in making Leona Lewis on The X Factor a better page on that article's talk page.
    • I would like to add that I think User:Wiki edit Jonny's nomination of this article for deletion, although maybe not made in bad faith, is perhaps a little vindictive in its absolute trashing of all I have done. A self-admitted fan of Leona, he made no attempt to improve the article, just summarily decided it was rubbish and had to go - see this edit summary when he removed a link to the article from the Leona Lewis page. Non-legitimate? Says who? Says Wiki Edit Jonny, who seems to be showing ownership of the article. Then he ploughs straight in to delete it, saying it is "pointless", it "offers extraneous information that a user needn't know", "it is sloppily written and presented" and that "to date, has only been edited by one user alone".
    • I answered those points above when I was stung by the nomination and the heavy-handed criticism within it. But I have been thinking this over and would like to add this:
    • 1) It may be pointless in Wiki edit Jonny's opinion, but I can assure him that many other people disagree with him. As we have all the space in the world on Wikipedia, why not have long, detailed sub-articles that expand and complement the Leona Lewis page? Leona Lewis is a world class artist. She is going to be performing at the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. As of February, before her huge success in America and the latest date for which I would find information [15] her page was the 845th most visited on Wikipedia. It is bound to be a lot higher now. People clearly want to know about her. So why take out information on her? I just can't understand it.
    • 2)The assertion that it "offers extraneous information that a user needn't know" and his later submission that Wikipedia should only be concened with "sparing and necessary information" needs challenging. It is SO far from what I understand Wikipedia to be about. I don't know where he got that idea from, but to me to say things like that is not so dissimilar to suppressing information and censorship. And, as I said before, who decides? Do we all have to bow to Wiki edit Jonny's dictat?
    • 3) Okay, it could do with some pruning, but is it really "sloppily written and presented"? Or is that just Wiki edit Jonny's impression of it, given that he seems to want to damn everything about this "pointless" article? Compare it to ten or twenty articles you get by hitting "random article" and it stands up pretty well, I think. It is set out logically, following the progression of the show with following sections on the spin-off shows which relate to the X Factor every week. I see no spelling or grammatical errors. If there are any, they are easily corrected.
    • 4)Is a non-argument. He made that statement when the article had been in main space for two days. I had made a total of 15 edits to it on the first day, and then when I was asked at DYK to supply in-line citations I spent the next day sourcing and adding these, which accounts for the rest of the edits. Hardly 'fanatic', just thorough. Not surprisingly, it hasn't been edited since as deletion hangs over it - as User:smb said on the Leona Lewis talk page, "I don't want to help improve it only to see it removed."
    • I also made this article specifically about Leona Lewis on The X Factor, to show her progress through the show. To put things like the judges' comments in to The X Factor Series 3 page would unbalance that, as there would be nothing comparable for the other contestants. The table at the end shows all the songs she performed on the show. That information is on The X Factor Series 3 page, sure, but not in a handy form so that you can quickly and easily find out what she performed week by week. Again, that wouldn't sit well in The X Factor Series 3 page as there is nothing comparable for the other contestants.
    • By the way, Wiki edit Jonny did not have the courtesy to visit my user page and tell me that he had propsed the article for deletion. Courtesy seems a little lacking in the dear boy - you only have to look at some of his edit summaries [16] when he comments on other users' edits. Take this one: [17] In my opinion, a perfectly acceptable edit has been deemed "poorly written and unncessary" (sic - oh the irony). What on earth is poorly written about it? And why can't we have interim information? Why do we have to wait for the full list? Because Wiki edit Jonny says so ....
    • Okay, that's it for now. Leonapedia (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion – I think there needs to be bit of straightening-out of one or two misunderstandings here. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, yes. However I think I was misunderstood when I said it is meant to offer sparing and necessary information. I do not mean that I am a communist leader and want censor what the demographic should and should not know. I mean that, there is a line between what is necessary for a reader to know—to have a full and rounded understanding—and what is extraneous. For example, you wouldn't make an article about Brad Pitt's daily undergoings, starting with getting up, drinking some milk, taking a shower and so on... because it is superfluous and unnecessary. If every user went into huge amounts of detail, adding to articles whatever/however much they wanted, you'd end up with a big, badly edited blob. We need to take into consderation that an article on Wikipedia is as much a publication as a book in the shops. That book, isn't the size of a house nor is it written liberally. Rather, it is a polished and well-edited piece of publishing. I only feel that to have word-for-word verbiage of what the judges said week-in week-out goes into a bit too much detail and doesn't add value to the article and, in a way, undermines the programme when a reader can just get that information from watching it on YouTube. And, Leonapedia, if you cared to look at the article for which I made that edit you would know that it already says when the auditions began, and, The X Factor website releases an article at the end of the audition process stating all the cities to which it has been for auditions. There's no point only stating one of the locations; it's all or nothing; preferably all. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless article. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well sourced and notable information (it is, after all, how she got her start) of a length that would make a merge undesirable. Ford MF (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly merge anything useful elsewhere like The X Factor. I appreciate all the work that has gone into this, but if you start making individual articles like this for one contestant, then what's to stop every other contestant getting a similar article depicting every second of their time on the show? The important parts are probably covered in other articles anyway, so this page just isnt needed.Gungadin 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that she is exceptional. I'm not expecting there to be pages like this for every contestant because, quite frankly 99% of them fade into obscurity. This is clearly not going to happen to Leona Lewis - no 1 albums worldwide, record breaking sales, upcoming performance at the Olympics, possibly singing the theme to the next Bond film - she is a major star and so warrants a detailed examination of her rise to fame on this show. Leonapedia (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's only been publicly known for over a year, she's not in Whitney Houston's league just yet. To say she deserves this page because she's exceptional is opinion-based, and others might feel the same about all the other singers on the show. There are numerous singers who began on televised talent shows of some sort. Celine Dione and Gary Barlow for instance, both have been around a lot longer than Lewis and both can surely be deemed exceptional, but neither have articles on wikipedia detailing every aspect of their appaearance on the talent show. The series already has its own page The X Factor (UK series 3), and I might think differently if this was a collective expansion of the events of the entire series and not just focused on Leona. As it is, it comes across like a fan page with gushing comments everywhere about Leona. There's no reason why a selection of the judges comments can't be included in the main series' articles, but for all the contestants.Gungadin 10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge some of the content. Subject matter isn't sufficiently notable for an individual article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge/Delete', if merged then remove the week-by-week details .--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice – Thanks to all who have offered their opinions. In light of Wikietiquette, please can we state an absolute answer when putting in our input. As per the AfD guide: "Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as "delete and merge", which can't be done as edit histories of merged text must be preserved" (see here). Thanks. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL document merely requires the authorship is recorded, which can be done in an edit summary, especially considering there is only one author. PhilKnight (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Thought I'd Seen Everything (Stevie Vann song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Thought I'd Seen Everything (Stevie Vann song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. It was composed by two notable acts, and it was recorded by two notable acts, but that doesn't make it notable on its own -- there are no sources pertaining to the song, and it wasn't a single or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DirectNet[edit]

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

Software of dubious notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McGee[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unsourced, in-universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. Fails WP:FICT, WP:V and WP:RS. Serves no discernible purpose that could not be served by NCIS (TV series). McWomble (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up- Is the article poorly written by wikipedia standards? Sure. But that means it needs cleaned up, not deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Writing in an in-universe format is not a valid reason for deletion. WP:DELETE specifically states If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Here is a source [18] specifically about the character. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as real-world coverage does appear to exist, e.g. [19]. Scog (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of farmers' markets[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of farmers' markets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Directory of non-notable markets (see also WP:NOT#DIR) Ratarsed (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete (A7 - band that fails to assert notability) by Orangemike.. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Bad Girl[edit]

Teenage Bad Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable band, removed prod Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clues that Paul is dead[edit]

Clues that Paul is dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mostly Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Triwbe (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm just re-stating material deleted to keep the original page more on topic. And if it wasnt neutral you'd delete it for supporting/not supporting something that can't be seen as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewy5000 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we take that as a Keep then ? --Triwbe (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the clues were trimmed down to what's verifiable they wouldn't be such a problem for the main article. WillOakland (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR. Page already exists.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uncritical and poorly presented original research. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a constant query at Paul is dead for information about these purported "clues," many of which are well known. Serving readers is what wikipedia should try to do. Admittedly, this will be a difficult page to keep encyclopediac (or however you spell that) but you could say the same about thousands of other wikipedia articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's no original research I can see - the article lacks inline references, but contains links to third party sources referencing all the information. WilyD 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links are to primary sources and web sites, not to reliable sources that actually discuss the "Paul is Dead" nonsense. WillOakland (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some need to be reminded that wikipedia is a tertiary source, making use of the secondary sources who in turn have examined and given an opinion on the primary sources? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not really relevent to "original research" - and in reality, any article that's developed uses a mix of "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary" sources (not the least of which is caused by those terms being convienent fictions). Note that merging is likely to create an overly long article, which will need to be resplit by article size guidelines ... WilyD 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uncritical and poorly presented original research. However the subject topic is excellent and I look forward to reading a better version of this. A fine candidate for improvement, rather than deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be covered in the existing article to the extent that the claims are verifiable. WillOakland (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. The title is odd, too. Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Paul is dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legotech (talk • contribs)
Change to Delete per the snarky edit summary by WilyD LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourced content into Paul is dead, and then Delete. The existence of this as a separate WP article is invitation for it to become a POV-fork. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Paul is dead, and then Delete. Sourcing is kind of complicated with conspiracy theory- and urban legend-type phenomena, because by their very nature they're "questionably sourced." Skaraoke (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Article allready exists, high extent of original reserach.--Bit Lordy (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please DON'T merge this into Paul is Dead; better to kill this article. This was originally part of Paul is Dead - that was how it was created - but it swamped that article, taking up far more than half of it. Merging will just ruin two articles by creating and overwhelming mess. (I already voted keep) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information is aranged really badly, but it's intereting non-the-less.--76.246.176.32 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because it's interetsing doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bit Lordy (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Interesting reading material, but really has no place in an encyclopedia. If you want, you could host it on your userpage and a link could be provided via the talk page. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 01:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mad trivia. Strictly Beatles fansite material. tomasz. 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be about trivia, but discussion of trivia isn't itself trivial when interest in that "trivia" has expanded to the level of Paul's (or Elvis') death. This isn't about questioning whether or not Paul is dead, it's about studying the cultural phenomenon of a mass belief that Paul was dead, and its origins in particular. A fansite dealing with this would be strongly POV and OR. A wikipedia page dealing with it ought to respect WP:NPOV and and WP:NOR, to a level that gives a significant benefit. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i understand the significance of the Paul is dead phenomenon, but as has been mentioned, that page exists. This is a list of clues supporting that thesis, thus why i believe it merits the trivia definition. tomasz. 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the other comments on this page. This AfDed page came from the Paul is dead page. Arguments have been presented (sheer size, as much as anything) as to why two is better than one. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i did note that fact. i still think that if the info in this article is too much for Paul is dead it should be deleted as picayune trivia and largely made of original research. tomasz. 10:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as natural content outgrowth of Paul is Dead. These things here are ancient, and should be easily source-able, even though no one's done it yet. This shit's been around longer than most Wikipedians have been alive. Ford MF (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject adequately covered by Paul is dead.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no merge. There are no reliable sources used to verify the claims made, thus the content is original research, which lacks notability. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Article needs work" is not a valid criterion for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I had thought the article could be saved by being worked on, I would have said so. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheadle Bleachworks[edit]

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

I had a look on Google and, as stated Cheadle Bleachworks has now been demolished and replaced with housing. Does this constitute CSD A7? »xytram« talk 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're in Cheadle and you cared enough about the bleachworks to create the article - congratulations, you're the expert. Presumably this place is notable, at least in your mind? Why? What's the big deal with it? Notable employer, notable building, or even a notable local smell? Get it into the article! Compare other similar articles for examples. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP (with strong reservations and a healthy dose of WP:BITE) This article was one hour old at the time it was AfD'ed, being the first edit by a newbie. It is simply impossible to tell as yet whether they are still working on it and will shortly have added sufficient notable content to justify it. It's entirely wrong and impatient to delete a non-harmful article so early on. Let us watch and wait, then delete it if necessary.
As it stands, if left like that, I'd have no problem in deleting it - but give the editor a chance. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean - added a bit more as to why it is significant. Until they built the apartment complex we used it as a playground for parkour, yet little of the internet mentions it!!! i felt i had to put it down for others to see —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammelsauce (talk • contribs) 06:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Sources do not have to be on the Internet, they can be a magazine, journal or newspaper article that you find in a library, you just have to put the full source info in your article as a reference. That was what I meant by my comment about someone in the UK having access to other databases. A trip to a local library might reveal info that will support this articles notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Further to the comments shown I now think this should be kept. Time to get a library card Jammelsauce! »xytram« talk 09:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • indeedy. i just hope the police dont see this as technically we were trespassing! (too late now) lol. thanks for all your help you lot!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammelsauce (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - for now, to give the creator a chance to improve it. Unfortunately the fact that you used it for something doesn't make it notable unless there is an independant report about it that you can quote. The fact that only you and your friends know about it makes it independant research which isn't allowable in wikipedia. You need to look at WP:notability to see what's required for an article to be kept. I would suggest you look up the history of the works and see what you can find out. Best of luck Richerman (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reluctant keep for now. It was still there about four months ago, but seriously delapidated. The thing is, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of these ex-textiles mills in the Greater Manchester area. By and large, they are not worth articles. The information in this article could be a few lines in something like "Textile trades in Stockport", an article with planty of room for expansion if it's ever created. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i guess, looking at it from a neutral point of view, you're all right really - i've done some digging and can't really find anything of interest about this particular plant's history. maybe it is appropriate to delete. i just thought its unofficial history might be interesting to someone rather than be forgotten :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammelsauce (talk • contribs) 12:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the place is being redeveloped into housing with some of the old buildings being reclaimed. See here for more information. I'd be happy to expand the article a little. —PolishName 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seventysomething (term)[edit]

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

Per this policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bit Lordy (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's a tough one because others (Twentysomething (term) and Thirtysomething (term)) have been created with no issues. But I agree with Bit Lordy this isn't a dictionary. »xytram« talk 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the other articles, this one doesn't have the same context and relevance, and as stated above, this ain't a dictionary. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; that is what Wikitionary is for. Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have said WP:NEO, rather than WP:DICT. I can't find any evidence of use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Morristown 1776 Association Football Club[edit]

The Morristown 1776 Association Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Non-notable football club playing in a barely notable league, no independent third-party sources. The level of detail the article has suggests it's been written by somone connected with the club. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off target (band)[edit]

Off target (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod was removed so I'm bringing this here. I can't find any source that would back up the information in this article other than their myspace page. Don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Shell babelfish 08:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that myself; when I prodded it, it contained a claim of touring nationally; looks like that's been removed now, so I have no objection to a speedy on this one. Shell babelfish 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GET SOME FRIENDS!!!!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Herbertson[edit]

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

It's claimed that he's a notable author, a notable actor, a notable musician, a notable songwriter, a notable illustrator. Yet the entire history of the GoogleNews archive throws up absolutely nothing of note. [24] Instead, the facts are that as an author he fails WP:BK, as an actor he fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and as a musician and songwriter he fails WP:MUSIC. This is a WP:single-purpose account that, so far, has expressed no interest in contributing anything to Wikipedia apart from Mr. Herbertson's biography, Mr. Herbertson's non-notable fantasy novel, and an anthology that Mr. Herbertson once appeared in, and then peppering other articles with spamlinks to Mr. Herbertson and all of his doings. [25] Qworty (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. SPA devoted to this person maybe with a COI. The non-notability listed above, to me, makes this a delete. Minkythecat (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, this was not my intention. I am Mr Herbertson's wife and sometimes do his promotional work. I didn't think this was promotional though.

I am German and although I am more or less fluent I didn't read all the criteria. I was more concerned with trying to make the article function. I see now the mistake - this notability part. (and conflict of interest) I also wasn't peppering, just trying to respond to the need for references.

Google says this if you google 'herbertson' and 'emerald city':

.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Herbertson - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Emerald City - #108 For those who like such things, there are photos on the Emerald City web site. ...... like Craig Herbertson, whose brilliant first novel she is publishing, ... www.emcit.com/emcit108.shtml - 195k - Cached - Similar pages

Emerald City - #108 Oh, and welcome to Emerald City, I hope you enjoy it. This issue sees a guest article from multiple Hugo-winning fan writer and Worldcon chair, Mike Glyer. ... www.emcit.com/emcpr108.shtml - 175k - Cached - Similar pages

But I now appreciate that isn't notable enough because it is not multiple. And I think that these critics of the music would probably not be either. I can delete all the articles and references if you want. Sorry! Silkekingofthedirigibles (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CD-Rezension: LORD OF WHISKY Scots' folk at its best kann man da nur sagen!


www.cd-kritik.de, 06.07

CD-Rezension: LORD OF WHISKY Eine mitreißende Folk-CD!


MUSIKER Magazin, 03.06

CD-Rezension: LORD OF WHISKY ... gut gemachte schottische Musik, die nicht zwangsmodernisiert wurde ... Ohrwurmqualität ...


Folker! – Das Magazin für Folk, Lied und Weltmusik, 04.06

CD-Rezension: HEARTS OF GLORY Für Schottland-Fans empfehlenswert, für Hearts-Fans ein absolutes Muss ...


Folker! – Das Magazin für Folk, Lied und Weltmusik, 03.05

  • Delete no NPOV, little notability, also odd that it says he's divorced, yet the above poster is his wife? Shoombooly (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School: The Seventh Silence[edit]

School: The Seventh Silence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable fantasy novel [26] out from a micro-press and utterly failing WP:BK. A WP:single-purpose account has been busy spamming it and the author around the encyclopedia [27]. Reverting all of this promotional damage will be a large task. Qworty (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete does not appear to meet WP:N - the only sources are the publishers blurb and a claim that the author was reviewed in an on-line zine - but I was 'unable to find the quote within the zine, so that leaves only the publishers blurb. I also tend to believe the claims of spamvertisement, because even the "quote" from the publisher had been padded. Another possibility is to merge to the author's article Craig Herbertson-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable book, questionable references. I'd not merge to the author's article, which reads more like a long term social networking entry. I'd suspect the author may have been involved with this page. Minkythecat (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the authors wife so there is a conflict of interest. Just realised it now - I'm German so my English is not quite fluent and theres a lot of stuff here. I got most of the material from my husbands records and promo: The Emerald City quote is here below:

But looking carefully at notability it is only one source so you might as well delete it.

Emerald City Issue 108 August 2004

interview with Mike Glyer


'MICHAEL: POD is in its infancy. It’s something we would not consider doing at this point in time, because the loss of print quality and production control is so great. At the moment, it’s not the way we would bring out a writer’s work, although I applaud Storm Constantine’s experimenting with the medium and appreciate that writers like Craig Herbertson, whose brilliant first novel she is publishing, and Adam Daly, another quirky and eccentric writer, would not otherwise get out. Which is not to say that we will never produce books in this way, because when the technology improves, as it will, we obviously would do.


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

Delete no NPOV, little notability, also odd that it says he's divorced, yet the above poster is his wife? Shoombooly (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoombooly made this comment when deleting my article 'Craig Herbertson' about my husband. So everybody can put this into the grave with some dignity can I point out my husbands first wife is English and I am his second wife and I am German so its not as odd as you think. Again sorry for the trouble Silkekingofthedirigibles (talk) 16:00, 12 June 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 delete. — Scientizzle 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Luerssen[edit]

John D. Luerssen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crufty / promotional bio of a music journalist. Zero sourcing. Deiz talk 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per WP:OR. This article's been up for two years and not a shred of evidence for notability has ever been cited. He has written some articles, and some of them do Google-up, but WP:BIO requires that somebody else write articles about him to establish his notability, and nobody has ever done so. Qworty (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable + above Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions mostly consist of statements such as "one of the most important charts", "see WP:COMMONSENSE", "...doesn't mean it's not official" and "one of the best-known worldwide charts". Statements of this sort do not address the important issues of policy raised in this discussion, such as the article's WP:V problems.  Sandstein  18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United World Chart[edit]

United World Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent reliable sources proves its notability. Also it was deleted in French Wikipedia AfD: fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/United World Chart and it's under AfD in German Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3. Juni 2008#United_World_Chart (United World Chart seems to be produced by a German company). Tosqueira (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although I realise it's all over the web (via Google), I fully agree with the nominator: there are no independent reliable sources proving its notability. The only sites that use it are blogs and fansites. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's one of the most important charts over the world. See this. It's also used on some websites like Mariah-Charts. --TRyudo (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No information relates UWC to acharts.us, and acharts is only another chart site. Mariah-Charts is only a fan site: [28]. They are not reliable sources. For instance, Billboard charts are mentioned on MTV [29], Reuters [30], CBC [31] and many other reliable sources. I couldn't find any reliable source which mentions UWC; only blogs, fan sites, forums and the like (they are not reliable sources). Tosqueira (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not because it is a 'good' chart. But because it is a 'bad' chart! The UWC is used on many webpages, can be found in many articles in the Wikipedia (1300+ :-o). The UWC is mentioned so often that we need an article to explain what it really is and why it is not the same as the Billboard and other official charts. And also, as far as I know, it is the only serious attempt at a world-wide chart compilation, which makes it special and worth mentioning. -- Harro (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. And it's an official chart, as we can see here (I don't think someone can say that a chart is official on it's homepage when it isn't). --TRyudo (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Calling it official means exactly nothing. Not if you don't say of what it is official. I can call something official too, it's not a protected term. Now if they had said 'official of this-and-that organization', then they could not do it without permission of the organization, but they do not do that, as far as I can see. - Andre Engels (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it's mentioned in multiple Wikipedia articles is irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept. The issue is whether or not the presenter of the charts is notable enough to stand on its own, and blogs are not reliable sources to demonstrate such notability. Without such reliable referencing, we can't determine if it stands on the same footing as Billboard or Cashbox or if it's only slightly more notable than a local radio station's playlist. B.Wind (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO it should be deleted. First, because it seems to be a spam spread all over Wikipedia. Second, because people can believe it's a reliable source because it's all over Wikipedia (but there are no independent sources which proves it's official nor that it recognized by media). According to Jimmy Wales: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"[32]. Third, because of WP:NPOV, we cannot say it is a bad chart and we don't have sources which mentions that. Tosqueira (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We can state that it is not an official chart, because it is not recognized by the IFPI (unlike Billboard, OCC or Media Control charts). And we can show the nature of the chart by giving details about the compilation method. Nothing misleading or false or POV there. In the German Wikipedia UWC positions are not allowed in the charts tables of music articles and the German version of these lists was deleted just two days ago. Nevertheless we kept the UWC article, because it explains why we don't include them. As you are most keen to get the article deleted, I hope you will then attend to the links as well. Keeping the chart positions without an explaining link like the French did would rather add to its popularity. 'Zero information' can have that effect. -- Harro (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is not deleted, at least we should remove all positions from music articles (and explain why in the summary) and block their links. Tosqueira (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 65.12.124.183 (talk · contribs · count) Removed AfD Template. Tosqueira (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no context aside from its self-referencing. At no point does it explain the significance of the charts... or the source, for that matter. Unless there is something in the article that demonstrates the significance of the periodical presenting the charts, the charts themselves are meaningless. B.Wind (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see WP:COMMONSENSE--L is for Lover (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepting charts without evaluating the validity and notability of their source violates WP:COMMONSENSE, I must add here... B.Wind (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-referencing, no reliable sources, and the chart's reliability is in serious question. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Global Album Chart is the source of this site: http://www.worldwidealbums.net/2008.htm. It says, for example, that Here I Stand by Usher (released this week) have sold 600.000 copies, the same number of sales that the UWC shows here. Its also the same chart on the aCharts.us. Now see the Global Track Chart of this week and compare it with the singles chart of this week on aCharts.us. Exactly the same charts. --TRyudo (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced, looks like self-referencing or circular referencing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced either, even given the high amount of incoming links. I see no reliable sources about this chart, as compared to, say, the Billboard charts. Even Mediabase has a few reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who's to say Billboard is official while this isn't? A chart is only official if people accept it to be. And this is referenced enough on the net to be official. It definitely needs to be heavily edited though. A series of lists is hardly a good article. Acetic Acid 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Billboard is North America's definitive source on music. It is verifiable, as it relies on specific data. It is pretty much the main source for American music statistics. By your logic then, would I be able to make a random chart up with my favourite songs and leave it up on Wikipedia because I say it's official? SKS2K6 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: UWC does provide statistics. On the song chart, each song is given a number of points. 60% comes from sales, 40% comes from airplay. All of this is listed on the site's methodology page, including which countries are counted. It's not a random list of songs ranked by one's personal preference. Acetic Acid 03:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: But it's arbitrary. If you read the actual page, it says that they can increase points for a given album if there are "hugh [sic] sales", and they can get additional points from countries that have no official chart by being on the rest of the charts (how does that work??). For songs, they use not only the official airplay charts (which is good) but also various radio stations and tv stations, which to me makes it unbalanced. But the key point about this debate is whether or not there are enough independent, reliable sources to prove its notability? SKS2K6 (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it's not recognized by IFPI doesn't mean it's not official. Where does that definition come from? --Wiendietry (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any incoming reliable sources - or even independant sources - which dooms it to deletion for me. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the best-known worldwide charts is not irrelevant to me. DutchDevil (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I supported United World Chart, after learning my lesson on creating an article for Halopedia and due to WP:RS policy, it should be deleted of Wikipedia or merge into another article due to lack of reliable sources. Although there are sources, it only came from the website itself. I afraid this article has to go. Aranho (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, local youth theatre group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gyst[edit]

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

Non-notable (indeed utterly obscure) theater group, of which there are hundreds of thousands throughout the world. Woefully fails WP:ORG. Qworty (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus to Delete defaulting to keep. Very wide disagreement on the value of this list. There is strong support for a move to another title if it was kept such as the List of persons considered a founder in a field suggested here and would hope that some such change can be agreed as an editorial decision. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People known as the father or mother of something[edit]

People known as the father or mother of something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At first I thought from the article title it was a bad joke, but I suppose I can see it being substantially narrowed down (list of founders of fields, schools of thought, whatever). As it currently stands it seems to violate the indiscriminate collection of information concept in opening itself to just about anything. Even the current list has Sir Isaac Newton alongside the creator of Dungeons & Dragons (no offense) and the things they fathered/mothered range from "African Neo-Renaissance" (it doesn't have an article, whatever it is) to "Pokemon", from "gynaecology" to "international folk dance in the United States(?)". Jibbajabba (talk)

  • Delete - I just can't see this being useful; it's just too wide a concept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the deletion review summary that resulted in restoration after the last misguided deletion. Despite the broadness, this is a viable concept, especially as it continues to improve in terms of categorization. I can eventually be split into more focused topical lists. In the meantime, there's no reason to delete it.--ragesoss (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue is that it's simply too generic a title to have any way of defining its scope. As I mentioned - it's possible the article could be salvaged and trimmed, but not at such a vague location. Jibbajabba (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just can't see it as being useful, and it's far too vague to be a decent article. Skinny87 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:LIST and is well organized and sourced. I see no policy based problems at all. Nomination seems to be about content, and not the list itself. AfD is not the place for content discussions. Jim Miller (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this well-organized and well-sourced page. A better name might help it, but the content is definitely worth keeping regardless.  Frank  |  talk  13:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absurdity...Modernist (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Move to a more coherent title. Maybe a re-write is also in order? Change to Delete after reading some comments and thinking longer. Even moving probably wouldn't save this article, definitely not a rewrite. The nature of the list is flawed. Sources do not save article from listing multiple people as the "parent" of, to quote the article name, "something". Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Move; agree with Eric the Red 2 above. Maybe a general article about the expression "Father/Mother of <insert concept here>", describing how the expression is used and including a list of the notable/verifiable stuff from this article?evildeathmath 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Clearly, a lot of work went into this effort, and the sourcing is astonishing. But at the same time, some of these entries appear to be highly subjective (was Imhotep really the father of architecture?). And I hope a more appropriate title can be arranged. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, this article is every bit as worthless as it was prior to the first deletion thereof, and if anything has become more bloated and unwieldy since it was dragged back out of the grave. For heavens' sake, look at the title - Father or mother of something - something?? Seriously? Let's not forget WP:NOTDIR - this list lumps people like Frank W. Cyr and Mikhail Bakunin together, who have nothing in common outside of the fact that someone, somewhere, decided to anoint them with the title of "Father of". We're talking about something that is practically the dictionary definition of a directory of loosely related entries. This isn't like a list of Nobel laureates; there is no credible, respected organization that goes about determining the figurative parentage of different items. The sources are pulled in from a dizzying array of locations. Again, I will say, that just because someone (read: anyone), somewhere (read: anywhere) got the bright idea to say "Hey, so-and-so is the Father of Whatever", does not mean it's worth its weight in beans. This problem is illustrated by the fact that there are 5 - five - different men listed as "Father of Radio", each one supported by no less than one citation. There are four fathers of electricity, four fathers of chemistry, four for algebra, another five for computers ... need I go on? If the fact that we can reliably source several people as being "Father/Mother of Whatever" isn't indicative of the fact that this title is worthless, then I do not know what is. This list is a magnet for trivia and that is all it will ever be. Shereth 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone can apply this label in passing. There's no clear basis for deciding when the label becomes "authoritative." WillOakland (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reason given by the nominator in the previous AfD: "This gigantic list is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not." Not to mention that it's a magnet for all sorts of nationalistic posturing and bad scholarship over who invented what field. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename. The article certainly needs a lot more work in sorting out the lists and branching them off into relevant main articles, but it would be a great loss if we were to delete the immense effort that has gone into providing sources for its content. The article is already potentially useful for editors writing an article on a given field; with some more work it can also be made informative to the reader. I have had difficulty with the title before (even "List of fathers or mothers of a given field" would be better), but surely that is something best worked out by discussion, moving or splitting into subarticles, rather than permament deletion. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, it's a shame to see a lot of hard work lost - but a lot of hard work does not guarantee a decent article. Saying that it is useful also does not excuse the fact that this is still a directory of loosely related items, and is fundamentally flawed as an article. Shereth 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would point out that in just the past hour I have done a lot of work sorting it into relevant section lists. I think you would agree it is now more coherent. Some of the sections are already split off: eg. Fathers of the Church and Father of the Nation. The sections on Fathers of scientific fields (now split off) and Fathers of Literature (new) are also notable in themselves. I would strongly advise that splitting off the relevant sections and removing some of the more miscellaneous ones is a far better solution than deletion. --Grimhelm (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh oh, it's reproducing. Does this mean that we need to start four more AfDs? Splitting an article into lots of little pieces isn't usually a good way of saving it from deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Delete This is about as pointless as a 'List Of Fictional Penguins In Australian Comedy In The Nineteenth Century'. If a person is considered the father/mother of "something" then I suggest to mention that in the article about that person (or that "something").  Channel ®   22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They certainly should be mentioned in their respective articles, but it is also important to recognise that there are co-founders, and that some fields are related (as a well categorised list would show). Moreover, having a list helps co-ordinate the effort you suggest (as well as already providing us the sources necessary). --Grimhelm (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but that's chicken-or-egg logic. I don't think we need the list to be able to add that Einstein was the father of the Relativity Theory to the Einstein article (or that Saddam Hussein was the father of the Mother Of All Cliches). Besides, who is ever going to FIND a list that's called "People known as the father or mother of something"? Can you see somebody type that into the 'search' field? Seriously, I can't see any proper use for this list. It's just a collection of info and trivia that's already available elsewhere. Wikipedia is drowning in lists like these and I completely fail to see their point. I understand you're defending your work but I really can't see why this list should stay.  Channel ®   01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are nearly 50 article pages that link to this one, and there are 13 redirect pages:
  1. Fathers (title)
  2. List of people known as father or mother of something
  3. List of people known as founder, father, or mother of something
  4. Founder of
  5. Father of
  6. Mother of
  7. People known as the founder, father, or mother of something
  8. People known as father or mother of something
  9. List of people known as the father or mother of something
  10. List of people known as "father" or "mother" of something
  11. List of people known as the "father" or "mother" of something
  12. List of people known as the Father or Mother of something
  13. List of people considered the father of something
I would say that at least 4, 5, and 6 are decent candidates for searches.  Frank  |  talk  02:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Defending one's work is fine, but note that I didn't actually put any real work into this before this AfD. I'm just showing that it can be salvaged. Certainly there are miscellaneous "founders" (founder of the baby carrot?), but once the relevant fields are categorised the non-notable miscellaneous ones can be removed. Fathers of the Church, Fathers of the Nation and Fathers of scientific fields are notable topics; some of the others, less so.
          I have also noted the problem of finding this article before, but as Frank points out, users can still find this through links, and a rename would solve the problem you mention. --Grimhelm (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: And finally, being the father of something is a pretty vague and debatable achievement. For example, the list now says that Jan van Eyck is the father of oil painting, while both articles specifically mention this as a misconception. Something the mentioned source in the list obviously disagrees with. Virtually every achievement is too complicated to have a single person 'fathering' it. The title 'father of...' will almost always be a personal opinion or a gross oversimplification of achievements. I don't find that encyclopedic. In short, my delete stands.  Channel ®   09:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • My immediate reaction, before checking the article, was "sigh... another stupid, useless list of random articles on sundry people". I was surprised to see a genuinely good list.
  • People urging delete have two arguments:
    • a) The title; one the silliest I've seen to be sure; however not a valid reason for deleting. I therefore propose Rename to List of persons considered a founder in a field.
    • b) Too wide a concept. Not with "founder" and "field" instead of "mother" and "something", ie while one could argue ad infinutum wether Bohr, Schrödinger, or Heisenber are fathers of quantum mechanics, it's clear there not founders, however more important their contributions to develop it were than Max Planck's.
    • c)Several founders. Whithout digressing on whether a sexual system with several males contributing genetic material could be evolutionary stable, several genitors is in no way impossible, indeed normal: [33]

Based upon the refutations above, I urge to rename and keep this article ¨¨ victor falk 08:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: After over 200 edits in the past two days, all the alphabetical lists have been sorted and categorised. I feel the changes that have taken place since the nomination have largely addressed the nominator's concerns, and the article can now be split off where appropriate. Some more copyediting and trimming of the Miscellaneous section will improve this article further. --Grimhelm (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename. I agree that there are some entries in the page that are not so appropriate (like the D&D example raised), particularly because the scope is very large. I'd like to see this page renamed something along the lines of "founders of academic fields", and remove the non-notable materials. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we're going to delete this article, then we might as well delete every other list article on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with having a list article in Wikipedia as per Wikipedia:Lists. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and barring that delete. Came across the page while browsing an unrelated topic and I have to admit, despite the points mentioned above about the work that obviously went into this, it's pretty silly. Fathered or mothered... something? Like what? It's definitely too vague. Thompsontough (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not "fathered", but rather "known as the father of". Subtle but real distinction.  Frank  |  talk  02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We would have moved it already, except that it probably would have interfered with the review process. --Grimhelm (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable concept, well referenced, continuously improving article. A rename would perhaps be advisable, however, as the current title just sounds silly. I can't imagine to what, though. Ford MF (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ability and willingness of Wiki users to aggregate sources in this way is very close to THE fundamental reasons for having electronic wikis at all. The objections from uselessness are wrong by demonstration--this evening I found this specific entry quite valuable indeed as I prepared a Father's Day talk, and far, far faster than any review of individual topic articles one by one could ever have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P40tomahawk (talk • contribs) 04:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11. --jonny-mt 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie margins[edit]

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

Blatant advert for non-notable student magazine. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like it cannot pass WP:V. Not notable enough to warrant significant independent coverage. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant advertising. Townlake (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this is blatantly in violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:SOAP, tagged as db-spam. What is more, it's just a student rag not known outside BGU. 179Ghits, mostly for the geographical feature. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Bauman[edit]

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

I don't think this person meets the WP:BIO notability standard as an author, as an actor, or as both combined. Nadda in Google News brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. We've been trying to get rid of this one for a while now, but the process got hung up when the original prod tag was vandalized. The sole claim to fame for this person is that she's published a book with Putnam, which is certainly a legitimate and notable press, but the problem is that the book itself is not notable in the least [34], completely failing WP:BK. The article thus fails WP:RS & WP:BIO as well. The article is the work of a particularly assiduous WP:single-purpose account, which has continued to add material to it throughout all of the notability tagging, but without improving the WP:N. The article actually should have been speedied, but perhaps an admin will happen by and close it out on a WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What's really strange too is that the semi-cited work, Karezza does not seem to mention her at all. Not really sure it was supposed to do so, though. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a reference wrt. Natasha Bauman but about the subject of her novel, I feel. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear to be a notable author. Gsearch turns up 83 unique hits, of which most seem to be from booksellers' (Amazon, B&N) sites and precious little else. Not to be confused with her namesake, the M*A*S*H actress. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Simply not enough there to make an article of. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pariah Burke[edit]

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

Extremely aggressive WP:COI wikispammer and WP:single-purpose account whose sole function, so far, has been to violate WP:SPAM by adding promotional links to various articles [35], and to keep creating this same article about Pariah Burke, which has already been deleted previously by other editors on a PROD[36]. The entire historical archive of GoogleNews demonstrates a complete failure of WP:N [37], and while his books do exist, they are little more than tech manuals, and fully fail the notability standards of WP:BK. True, he has given quotes in passing to a few tech publications over the years, but none of these constitutes a source that can be used to meet WP:BIO, since none of the articles is about him; they only contain brief quotes from him. Finally, username indicates WP:AUTO, for which he's been warned, along with WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ugh. Delete this vanity page, per nom. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it sure does reek of vanity. It's hard to asume good faith in an instance like this. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BIO and WP:VSCA. "Burke is [..] internationally recognized" claim violates WP:WEASEL and is totally unsubstantiated; "expert on Adobe InDesign, Adobe InCopy, and QuarkXPress" are particularly abundant in the world. None of the claims are properly sourced to reliable publications, and then I'm not even talking about the citation linked to a directory entry. Also, shame about the name. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Whilst Jimbo doesn't want the word vanity used... this is a textbook example of a vanity page. Terminate with extreme prejudice... Minkythecat (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt Repeat self-promotion that just barely avoids speedy, and that need not be recreated. Townlake (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I fully understand your caution and suspicion, it is not my intent to use Wikipedia for spam or self promotion. The original Pariah Burke article was created by a third party; I don't recall by whom and cannot access the history of the original article. I later edited it to correct some outdated and erroneous information. The other day I came to the entry to update its bibliography section to include my latest book only to find the entry deleted. I restored the article, using as a template and guide current Wikipedia entries for my peers David Blatner and Ted Alspach.

If you examine the article you should note that it is clearly not for the purposes of self-promotion. Were that the case the article would be much longer and would include promotional copy about and links to my various books, the six for-profit websites I produce and/or edit, the software products I have produced or in which I have an interest, the several businesses in which I have interests, and so forth. In fact, there isn't even a link to my main website, iampariah.com. I didn't include it or any of the other information simply because there was not, in my opinion, any informative value to including such in the article.

The information I did include is relevant to those who might like to find out more information about this particular American techonology author--just as readers might like to find out about any of the other authors listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_technology_writers.

Further, I did not realize that my username violates any policies. I have never received any warning about that as Qworty states. How would such a warning have been delivered?

I've contributed over the years a little here and there to Wikipedia--mostly grammatical corrections--and extensively to other niche wikis at Wikia.com (see here for an example of my contributions), all using the same online name, which I also use for IMs, Usenet, and forums as well. I honestly did not think there was issue with my username, but would be happy to change it if the community or policy requires it.

Pariah S. Burke (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello there. My comment on your talk page was not in reference to your username, but to WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Your username is relevant only because it indicates COI and AUTO. Have you, btw, read WP:AUTO? I think it's especially relevant in this case. Thanks very much. Qworty (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Yes, I have read WP:AUTO. As I stated, the Pariah Burke article was originally created by a third party. My only editing of the original article was to correct factual errors; if I recall correctly (it's been a while), the mistakes were an incorrect date and a notation associating me with an organization with which I was not in fact affiliated. The subject of any biographical data must be given the ability to correct factual errors in that biographical data. Upon finding the article missing I restored it with information I strove to make as objective as possible, again, using similar articles about peers as a guide. If my restoration was not entirely objective, I apologize. Moreover, I request that the offending information be edited or removed as needed without calling for the destruction of the entire article. Pariah S. Burke (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are three wikipolicies at issue here. 1) Yes, a subject has an absolute right to correct errors in a biography, especially in terms of WP:BLP issues, and I and others will always defend a subject's right to do so. 2) While you have the right to do that, this is not the issue here. Correcting errors in a bio and reposting a deleted article about oneself are not the same thing at all. You should have never reposted a deleted article about yourself. 3) Finally, we have the overriding issue here: Does this particular article happen to meet the notability guidelines? Thus far, we have a resounding no. The article has already been deleted once. On this second deletion attempt, every single person who has spoken up thus far wants to see the article gone--everyone, that is, except for the guy the article is about. Things are not looking good for the retention of this article. And should you be tempted to remedy that situation, please read WP:MEAT first. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. These situations are always potentially awkward. I believe that WP:AUTO exists to protect the WP:BLP subject as much as it exists to protect the project. Perhaps even more so. In a situation like this one, the subject places himself in the awkward position of having to argue for his own notability. Meanwhile, those who are working from the perspective of policies and guidelines are placed in the awkward position of having to explain to a person why he or she is not notable by WP standards. There can hardly be anything more personal, even in a situation such as this one where there is nothing at all personal about it. Cases like these serve as reminders as to why we have WP:COI and WP:AUTO policies to begin with. I hope that Mr. Burke will take all of these concerns into consideration as he reads the comments of the half-dozen people who have called for this article to be deleted. Qworty (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I Caught the Plague[edit]

Today I Caught the Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band that doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC notability standard. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A metal-archives page is a signal of notability, in accordance to the WP:MUSIC notability guide. So if I wanted to, say, make a Wiki article about said band, it would not be a candidate for deletion under the guide as they are in fact, notable. Now, since Today I Caught the Plague have two members from the afformentioned band, that meets one of the criteria in the WP:MUSIC Notability guide, making Today I Caught the Plague a notable band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.56.125 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. A metal-archives page is certainly not a signal of notability, in accordance to the WP:MUSIC notability guide. And generally to invoke the "other members in notable band" argument the band in question needs to at least have their own WP article. tomasz. 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm. Notable because of their historical connection to another non-notable band. Nice one. Until I see some evidence that this band actually meets WP:MUSIC, eelete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused I fail to see the correlation between being notable and having a wikipedia article. There isn't even a Wikipedia article on A Girl A Gun A Ghost. If a band is only notable if they have a Wiki article, maybe me making this article also makes this band notable? By your logic, that makes complete sense. Mongeese
Comment. Context is everything. WP:MUSIC includes "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Now, if a band contains members of The Rolling Stones (big, notable band: therefore likely to have WP article), it's therefore obvious some criteria of WP:MUSIC are being fulfilled. However, if they only contain members of The Not Very Well-Known Band, it's certainly not so obvious. Therefore relying on membership of another band that doesn't have a WP article is unlikely to cut much notability mustard. Not sure what the reference to A Girl A Gun A Ghost not having an article was relevant to. Should they have one? Hope this helps, tomasz. 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A Girl A Gun A Ghost are a notable band that should, in fact, have a wiki page. The mentioning of that was to reinforce the fact that there is no correlation between a band being notable and having a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.56.125 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Having researched A Girl A Gun A Ghost, i respectfully doubt that they are notable per WP:MUSIC, but anyway: the point wasn't to suggest that there is always a correlation between notability and having an article, but that, as i mention above, generally to invoke the "other members in notable band" argument the band in question needs to at least have their own WP article. Please also note WP:WAX. tomasz. 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia content policy requires that articles are verifiable, have a neutral point-of-view, and do not contain original research. The WP:MUSIC notability guidelines are an aid to see if an article can meet those requirements. At this time, Today I Caught the Plague does not have independent reliable sources and cannot meet the content rules. Perhaps after the debut EP and tour, they will get some press coverage that will allow an article to be written but not now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was an article about the band in the newspaper the other day written by a third party professional journalist for a respectable paper. If my scanner was working i could link to a scan of it now, though i will try and find a picture in the near future. Mongeese 8:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.56.125 (talk)
Comment. If you were to name the newspaper in question, that might be one non-trivial third party source. tomasz. 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep. [39] Mongeese 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue to comment if you wish, but you only get one "vote". Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Comment: the metal-archive Mongeese mentioned is not notorious for not allowing entries for bands that are not significant. From the page "If you wish to submit a band local to your area that is not very well-known even among metalheads, you're more than welcome." "First, the band must have at least released SOME material. If you don't even have a physical demo... forget it." "Must be a heavy metal band......Or close enough" You only need to exist, be heavy metal and have a physical recording. You can be on that site if thats all that is known about you. eg Unholy Black Blood Baptism only has a 2 song demo. Being on that site does not suggest substantial notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article that Mongeese references above, in the Kanata Kourier-Standard, is a single reliable reference in a local paper. I've been attempting to research this other band, A Legend Falls, from which two of the band members came, but have not found sources to establish notability for that band. As much as I would like to support an up-and-coming band, I am not seeing evidence of the WP:MUSIC standard here, so I am left saying delete. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article says the same as this article. The newspaper article was written by someone called Johnny Mcarthur. A wikipedia article existed for someone of that name and was recreated as Johnny mcarthur (see [here]). Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whrrl[edit]

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

Can't find much about this except that it exists. If anyone can turn up something significant, then it's fine by me. Paxsimius (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. References provided demonstrate notability. I'm a bit confused by this nom. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Equally confused. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while some of the references do read a bit like reinterpreted press releases, they do seem to constitute significant coverage by reliable sources (WashPost, USAToday, eetc.) -Seidenstud (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Reading that page... what is Whrrl came to mind. Whilst it's referenced, those references do read like press releases. Should they then carry much weight in assessing notability of Whrrl as a consequence? Many things in the world of software are vapourware, carrying press releases which can be valid sources... I'd vote weak keep for now, but the page really needs a big re-write to give it some sense of meaning. Minkythecat (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minkythecat kinda summed it up for me better than I could. I don't want to necessarily see it deleted; just want to know that it's okay or could use some help. A rewrite tag, perhaps? Paxsimius (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. Can you elaborate a bit on the potential problem with this article and/or the sources used? I don't know what you mean when you say they read like press releases? I tried to keep this article as clean as I can by just summarizing what it does and the news pieces that talk about it. Squitringo1234 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal and interest guaranteed security[edit]

Principal and interest guaranteed security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advert for a type of loan offered by one (only one) Canadian company, with links to the company and it's subsidiary. No assertion of notability and no secondary sources. JohnnyMrNinja 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Unreferenced, created by SPA, reads as a disguised company advert. Minkythecat (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. My initial impression on reading this was to speedily delete it as blatant advertising. I see that speedy deletion had been declined by DGG on that ground, so I reverted myself. I beg to differ; it is blatant advertising:

    PIGS are not only safe because of the diversified range of businesses within the basket but because the fund also takes a direct involvement in each of the businesses in which they invest. Thru its subsidiary company Integrated Business Concepts (IBC) and other supporting affiliates, a complete synergy is formed. Best practices are implemented in each company from the training of the CEO down to the way the receptionist answers the phone. This type of synergy is essential in obtaining the fastest path to profitability since time, energy, and capital is not wasted on the learning curve.

    Yeah, sure, and I have a bridge for sale, too. It may be better to just let it run its course, so that any attempt to re-create similar or related articles can be summarily deleted. Quaere, is there a "Wikipedia does not offer investment advice" template? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess I did not notice those two paragraphs, for some reason--if I had, I would at least have deleted them. Now, if those paragraphs were removed, would there possibly be an article? If so, it does not qualify for speedy. The question really is, are there other references to this? DGG (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong response - Searching for this phrase hasn't revealed anything. I highly encourage anyone who thinks they might find for notability to look before the end of this AfD, but I have personally come up with nothing. JohnnyMrNinja 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to propose the sale of a kind of mutual fund with an investment strategy that is, ahem, highly unusual. The proponents claim to be able to guarantee their investors a return based on a fund that says it invests in startups that also buy a common management plan from the same people. It would surprise me to find that this is a widely shared strategy, and frankly, "it'll end in tears." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerokan[edit]

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

Microstub, no information, no references. Creator is a banned sockpuppet. Garyseven (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It could use some work, but with the laziest of googling I have found minor notability and references. It has been up long enough (since 12/07) that the sock-puppet aspect is moot. JohnnyMrNinja 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of google - the practice of kerokan is a long standing practice by dukuns and other traditional health workers in Java in Indonesia - and it is a classic practice for curing afflcitcions such as a 'masuk angin' which although alien to non javanese - was and possiby still is a culturally bound syndrome - as for whether it was created by jimbo wales or a sock puppet - it is a notable cultural practice which could stand up to WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS without much trouble if the afd doesnt go through SatuSuro 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —JohnnyMrNinja 04:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —JohnnyMrNinja 04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, less ideally, merge into Gua Sha if appropriate. Notable practice, sources for expansion shouldn't be hard to find. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable quack cure - one of many. Can't see what could possibly be added. Perhaps could be mentioned in Dukun or other relevant articles. Davidelit (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - prepared for merge with dukun - could be a good compromise - as to the the nature of the practice - have taken the issue up at the Indonesian Project noticeboard SatuSuro 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gua Sha. Basically just a local name for the same practice. Barfoos (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable (and easily google-source-able) folk psuedomedicine. {{cleanup}} is not a rationale for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Lots of heat and little light. If this was an "normal" independent film, released a week ago and with a little interest on blogs and forums, sourced by a forum and one news story, then it would be deleted without a second thought. I don't see why this is any different. No prejudice to recreation should it actually become notable. Black Kite 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Skies (machinima)[edit]

Clear Skies (machinima) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable machinima production released only a week ago, with the only source being forums. Apparently it is "extremely popular" because the forum thread has had "hundreds of replies". Also, being linked to by the developers is not an indication of notability. Non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable, third-party sources is. Drat (Talk) 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wow. I looked at the movie a bit, and it looks pretty impressive. If it catches on outside of the world of machinima forums, it probably could get enough non-trivial coverage to warrant a wikipedia article! But until then.... - Seidenstud (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - Why community of thousands doesnt warrant entry? and why should people who have nothing to do with machinima, decide whether its notable work or not.. only the machinima community can decide that I would think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmageddon (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The number of members in the game's community is not an argument for keeping this. By that logic, we'd have to make articles for every piece of World of Warcraft machinima ever made because it has 10 million players. You need to show that the film has recieved non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Forums and 99.999% of blogs are not reliable.--Drat (Talk) 06:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable - The most notable aspect of this machinima is not necessarily based on the numbers of praising forum posts, but in its artistic quality, and most notably, the pioneering method of integrating multiple game engines. I can think of no other Machinima which does this, especially not to this amazing effect. This fact alone warrants the wiki. - CraziFuzzy (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's artistic quality needs to have been covered by reliable, etc, etc. sources as I have said above. Your personal analysis is not sufficient (See WP:NOR). As for multiple engines, other machinima productions released years ago have done this.-Drat (Talk) 09:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To what standard do you then use to judge artistic quality? I fail to see how you can determine who's opinion would be considered more 'reliable' than the movie's target audience. CraziFuzzy (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opinions of critics who are well known, writing for publications with a reputation for fact checking and peer review. The opinions of random people on a forum count for nothing, as forums are not reliable sources. If you check the references section for Red vs. Blue you will see many references from reliable publications.--Drat (Talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete

This is a ground breaking movie/production/machinima, what ever you want to call it. This type of thing has never been done before in eve, i mean, that in itself has got to warrant this atical being kept.

This is a fantastic piece of work put together through literally YEARS of work and has had a huge impact on the world of EvE, over a thousand posts on the eve-online forums, with over eighty five thousand views of the posts! 20000 downloads at just one mirror, and there are a total of 9 mirrors, not to mention all the torrent files that exist.

I thought wikipedia was supposed to inform and add to society? Well, to be honest, i don't see how deleting such an ..dare i say it.. EPIC movie that has obivously brought hundreds and thousands of people together..well, how exactly can you jusitfy deleting this artical when so many people have enjoyed it so much and, now this it a major case in my arguement to keep this artical, so i'll put it in bold, even the game developers have taken the time out to post their amazment and approval (see bottom of post)

There is no doudt in my mind that this movie deserves a wikipedia artical.

Ok, to counter the posts for deletion:

"Seidenstud" - "Wow. I looked at the movie a bit, and it looks pretty impressive. If it catches on outside of the world of machinima forums, it probably could get enough non-trivial coverage to warrant a wikipedia article! But until then...."

You just need to read the statistics i have included in this talk page/reply, and feel free to go and check them for yourself: The forum sub section: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=channel&channelID=29045 The post itself: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783871



"Drat" - "The number of members in the game's community is not an argument for keeping this. By that logic, we'd have to make articles for every piece of World of Warcraft machinima ever made because it has 10 million players. You need to show that the film has recieved non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Forums and 99.999% of blogs are not reliable."

Well, to start off with, how can you call over a thousand posts not reliable??? i'm sorry but what you have posted here is, and to put it frank, utter rubbish in relation to this post. Fair enough, it just would not be justifiable for wiki to have an artical about every movie created, but ....over a thousand posts!.. i would be very very suprised if even a few of the movies in that big list of "machinima" ever got over a thousand posts combined within the first week of unvieling it to the public.

As for multiple sources, clear skies is featured on: Eve Online forums: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783871 and, while this might not be completely independant, the developers went out of their way to even put the movie in the game's news: http://myeve.eve-online.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2067&tid=7 <- I have never seen that before

The Half Life 2 forums: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143190 The creator has been interviewed: http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=9&ep=38 LivePvP.com, with several posts telling of it's awsomeness: http://www.livepvp.com/watch/eve-online/clear-skies/ rockpapershotgun.com: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1846

and i could go on and on, hell, it's even on the machinima forums: http://www.machinima.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=55702&sid=c2f355ee60afc851183a18beccbac37c



"Drat" - "It's artistic quality needs to have been covered by reliable, etc, etc. sources as I have said above. Your personal analysis is not sufficient (See WP:NOR). As for multiple engines, other machinima productions released years ago have done this"

Again, i disagree sir =]. As i have sead before, this kind of thing has never been seen in the eve universe before. This my friend is originality, applying an idea to a completely new spectrum, that spectrum being eve. As for the "Your personal analysis is not sufficient" remark, doesn't that make what you have just said, and by your own words "not sufficient" or irrelovent, finally on this point, the "personal analysis" of others is exactly what makes this website so efficent, so versatile, so great. So please get down of that high horse of yours. Ok, so that artical you linked opens with the following: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." I fail to see how any of this relates to this movie as it is not a "fact, argument, speculation, or an idea". It is simply a movie and by no means does it "serve to advance a position", thus making this artical irrelavent to your arguement. Please read any third party sources you post in to try and back you up in future, I'm sorry for being harsh mate, but thats how it is.

I also completely agree with "CraziFuzzy" here, his/her(sorry couldn't tell by the name =P) posts:

"The most notable aspect of this machinima is not necessarily based on the numbers of praising forum posts, but in its artistic quality, and most notably, the pioneering method of integrating multiple game engines. I can think of no other Machinima which does this, especially not to this amazing effect. This fact alone warrants the wiki"

"To what standard do you then use to judge artistic quality? I fail to see how you can determine who's opinion would be considered more 'reliable' than the movie's target audience"

Finally,

"Drat" - "The opinions of critics who are well known, writing for publications with a reputation for fact checking and peer review. The opinions of random people on a forum count for nothing, as forums are not reliable sources. If you check the references section for Red vs. Blue you will see many references from reliable publications" 1. and i'm sorry to keep bringing this up but, over a thousand peoples views and opinions count for nothing? What planet are you on? Sure, MAYBE if it was 10, even 20 people and it stopped there, but this is way to many people to just disgard without a thought when they are all saying the same thing, that this movie was simply epic. I can not think of a better or bigger word that puts it so finely. 2. As for the references, this movie, or now more accuratly "Episode 1" has not had time to gain those awards or credentials. Plus, i think it is extremely unfair to be comparing something that is only just over a week old to something that has been up and running for years, no matter how great either of them are. 3. I have to be asking you this, but just exactly who do you think you are to be the judge of whose opinion is or isn't relivant, that they "count for nothing"? Your opinion is just as relevant as those "random people on a forum", i jsut can't seem to find the words to describe my annoence, putting it lightly, to how you seem to see yourself as better than other people, as more significant, as your opinions being more meaningful than others. ...ok ok, rant over

Drat, i respect you and the fact you are a very senior member of the wiki online community can only add to my respect, but comments such as "The opinions of random people on a forum count for nothing" almost destroy that respect. Wikipedia is a public Exyclopidia for the sharing of knowledge. "random people" come on this forum everyday and add to that knowledge, how can you say their opinions count for nothing.

Please take a deep breath before you reply and don't try and dismiss peoples opinions as trivial next time.


Conculsion I am going to have to quote "CraziFuzzy" here, as he i think has put it perfectly: "The most notable aspect of this machinima is not necessarily based on the numbers of praising forum posts, but in its artistic quality, and most notably, the pioneering method of integrating multiple game engines. I can think of no other Machinima which does this, especially not to this amazing effect. This fact alone warrants the wiki"

plus, it must be pretty epic to spur me on to write this chunk of text =P


Developers posts: CCP Dionysus: "very very nice.. awesome" CCP Casqade: "Wow. This is exactly what I wanted.

Movies with story is always better than the regular flashy effects coordinated with music. I have been longing for something like this so long. Thank you so very much!

Great work! I want to buy you beer at Fanfest." ISD Deckard Bishop: "Amazing movie!

We want more! I think I speak for everyone when I say we need another episode! I'm sure you can cope without sleep for another year or two!!!" CCP Hastur: "oooh Very nice" CCP Whisper: "This is making the rounds of the office at the moment...everyone who's seen it has been blown away while laughing their heads off. Very well done sir, very well done. Very Happy

...now if you excuse me, I am off to prepare a pre-recorded message begging for help." CCP Oneiromancer: "Pure awesomeness!

Now I need to steal a hat to tip it to you. Possibily several hundred hats.

I can only hope that we will get to see some more of your and your team's amazing work in the future and if you come to the FanFest this year the entire QA department will drown you in beer and cookies." CCP Hunter.: "L O V E D I T ! ! ! !" CCP Whisper: "Actually if you go by the backstory there are numerous ships still piloted the "traditional" way as illustrated in this movie. Pod pilots are the elite of the EVE universe and better able to control their ships, but I would assume that at any given point and time there are more ships being flown the normal way than through pod technology. But that's me descending into deep RP again which leads to me wanting to have more NPC traffic actually warping in and out rather than just appearing in space like god's own film splice special effect.

Couple of us were talking about this movie in the pub this evening...every one of us already has a favourite line from this video. It got quoted and laughed about a lot, so again: Job well done." CCP Greyscale (a very senior/important dev member): "I laughed so hard my top wingy bit fell off.

You sir are a god among men and I salute you.


o7" CCP Navigator: "John Rourke,

Please take a bow and bask in the glory of being an EVE Online God.

That video was nothing short of brilliant.

o7"

and many many more, i will take the time tomorrow to post them you for you.

i'm sorry, but no matter how much you argue, but THESE people you cannot ignore of say that they are "random people" and "their opinion counts for nothing" , they make the game!!!

Electricalplug (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The views and opinions expressed here are by no means those of of the "Clear Skies" production team or those of the eve online comminity, including developers. They are the sole opinions of a fan wanting to see a great peace of work duely recognised 86.13.148.14 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electricalplug, I truly do appreciate your passion and efforts in trying to protect this article. However, your arguments and rebuttals are virtually consistently opposed to Wikipedia policy. I urge you to read thoroughly the policies of verifiability and no original research, plus the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Having read those, I then urge you to reexamine your comments here objectively in the context of Wikipedia and it's policies. After you better understand what exactly is going on here, I do hope you stick around and become an active editor, as your energy level could be quite an asset to this project. -Seidenstud (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the creator of the article, I'm not sure if I'm entitled to a vote (not that this is really a vote anyway). However, I would like to at least add a couple of comments. I was a bit hesitant to create the article in the first place as I figured someone would come along and put it up for AfD. However, I still think the choice to create it was the correct one, and I believe the article should stay. Clear Skies is a landmark film which has caught the attention of a huge portion of the EVE community, not to mention a growing number of outside sources - a quick google of Clear Skies Machinima will show you that it has already been covered by dozens of independent sources. The fact that it has garnered this much attention from so many different sources in such a short amount of time would seem to indicate notability, and contradicts the statements of both the AfD proposer and the single delete vote. Uniqueuponhim (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is coverage out there that is reliable, non-trivial and independent of the subject, than by all means show it. Googling "clear skies" machinima gets 633 hits, with 154 unique. Leaving out forums, random blogs, trivial coverage (a few sentences, or nothing but a link), endless reprints of what looks like a short press release on various sites that seem to be linked to one another, and of course, links that have nothing to do with the film, I have found no significant coverage.--Drat (Talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again. I currently have the following what i believe "no-trivial" coverage of this movie so far, and amassing more as the days go by:


A Review on Rock Paper Shotgun -> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1846

Eve Online news piece (including this as it technically is indepentant as Ian isn't a member of the CCP or white wolf team) -> http://myeve.eve-online.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2067&tid=7

As mentioned about Massivley's Review of the movie -> http://www.massively.com/2008/06/09/eve-online-meets-half-life-2-in-machinima-masterpiece/

Warp Drive active podcast where Ian is interviewed on the making of this project -> http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=9&ep=38

Another podcast "Drone Bay", completely seperate from Warp drive active and features none of the same people, gives clear skies a thumbs up and advises all to watch it -> http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=17&ep=12


Ok, as for the link to Red vs Blue's Referance's section, i'm going to same again that comparing a show that has been up for years now and has hundreds of episodes to a series that is barely out of the wrapper it extremely unfair. Also, a lot of those links point inwards to wikipedia articals and some are pointing to the same location. I've even come across a few that doesn't exist at all. Now, after reading the links that Seidenstud posted up, i believe that a "reliable source" is one to be held in high esteem of those within the community it was created for and by some others outside that community. They give credit were credit is due and are generally very perticular about where there information comes from.

Ok, so assuming that i got this right, blogs such as the podcasts "The Drone Bay" and "Warp Drive active" and blogs such as "CrazyKinux's Musing" could, and should be included as reliable, not as "a forum post, random blog or trivial"

In relation to "Wikipedia:No original research", i still don't really understand how this apply's to "Clear Skies". As you said Drat, this concept of film making has happened before, and you corretly pointed to Red vs Blue, so this makes the "no original research" point invalide, espicially if a cross platform film has been producted before as you said Drat, and on this topic, are there any examples of these on wikipedia or floating around on the web that i can have a look at? Well, even if these cross platforms productions don't exist it still doesn't mean that this artical apply's the "Clear Skies" as the idea for it was born on the fact that machinima exists. Infact, how i see it, the adds another "reliable source" to the list as "Clear Skies" was born from the idea of machinima, all it is is just a different, and better in my opinion, branch to what most producers follow when creating a machinima production. This could even be the startings of a whole new type of machinima with it's Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources being the origanal machinima productions that have now been surpassed in terms of quality and context by this new thinking on an old idea


Finally in relation to "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" Section two (Pointing at policy [40]) says that to form a valide arguement for deletion, specific policy must be breached, and the only policy breach i can see that has been directed and apperently brocken by the "Clear Skies" Wiki page is the Verifiability policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V). There are other policy breaches in this discusion i know, but they ahve been directed at me, not the "Clear Skies" page =P. Anyway, havn't both Ian and myself both proved that policy to not apply to clear skies? Espicially as Ian is the creator of this movie, that should surely blow the Verifiability issue right out of the water surely?

If i am mistaken, or if you see any of the points above as invalide please don't hessitate to point it out, also explinations on anything i might have gotten myself confused over would be very must appriciated.

Also, i've had a look and as of yet, i can't find any true, and distinct cross platform productions to the scale and context of clear skies

Thanks for reading again

Liam


Electricalplug (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, the verifiability policy is not jut some policy that should be followed, unless no other policies are broken. It is an integral part of the first of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. You say that "both Ian and myself both proved that policy to not apply to clear skies." You have done no such thing. Policy applies to all articles; there are no exemptions. Furthermore, the fact that the creator of the movie is participating, does in no way "blow the Verifiability issue right out of the water." In fact it makes it more problematic because he has an enormous conflict of interest. I strongly suggest that you examine closely the links that I have included in this reply. -Seidenstud (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry not sure how you post in the discussion, and I am not commenting on whether to delete or not, as I am personally involved in the project as I provided the voice for Charlie Fodder, but I cannot see anywhere in here where Ian (the creator of Clear Skies) has actually commented on here one way or the other, in fact all of us involved in the project have taken care NOT to post on places like this to "big ourselves up". 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Charlie Fodder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Fodder (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point i was trying to make, and it's my fault that i didn't get that across, sorry about that, is that the wiki artical in question must be "published by reliable sources". Surely most reliable source to create said wiki page is the author and creator himself? I wasn't infering that by posting in this discussion Ian has "blown the Verifiability issue right out of the water", just the fact that the page was created by the creator. The fact that still remains however is that there are "reliable, non trivial" articals that praise Clear Skies in the conception and making of such a great movie Electricalplug (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if there is some sort of misunderstanding here, but I am not Ian Chisholm. I simply saw fit to create an article about it after the movie exploded in popularity as much as it did, given that the movie was of such high quality compared to most machinima and that within a couple of days of its release everyone in EVE (and many outside of EVE) was talking about it. I don't know how the idea came about that I am Ian Chisholm, but I certainly am not (and to be honest, it wouldn't exactly be appropriate for him to create a wikipedia article about his own movie so that probably isn't the best argument to make anyway.) Uniqueuponhim (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have also just re-read the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and have come across a key section that is going to bring one of my main arguements of keeping this page back into play, this being the "Notability fallacies". This number is big or not big enough, ok, on one forum alone, there 1145 replies, 92047 views, and from only 3(because these were the only ones to display the amount of downloads) out of the total of 12 mirrors that you can download from that are listed in the post, there are 26431 downloads in a community of roughly 28,255(average uniques hits per month of "www.eve-online.com" from the US) with around only 8,028(average uniques hits per month of "http://myeve.eve-online.com" from the US) of those going to the section of the site that contains the forums. Therefore, this is very notable and a strong arguement to keep this page.

Info can be found at:

http://www.quantcast.com/myeve.eve-online.com

http://www.quantcast.com/www.eve-online.com


I would go on to say "that assuming that this download trend of an average of 8810 downloads per mirror for the 3 mirrors that listed the amount of downloads, one could assume then that the estimated total downloads for this film thus far is 8810x12 = 105720 Downloads in total", but i'm now sure that this is inline with wikipedia policy as it is purely hypothetical (bonus points for the big words lol =P) and will delete this segment if needed as i am still only getting to know all of the rules and regulations that makes wikipedia such a great and reliable source of information.


Also, since Drat posted yesterday the numbers on googling '"clear skies" machinima': ""clear skies" machinima gets 633 hits, with 154 unique"

The number of hits has gone up to 2,620, thats a 313.9% increase in just one day, very notable (math -> [[2,620-633]/633]x100).Sorry, don't know how to get the amount of unique hits, is someone could put up the numbers that'd be great.


Electricalplug (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hey. I'm not sure that I understand your last point 100%, but it seems that you may have understood the section in the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" essay. The "notability fallacy" refers to the argument of numbers (forum views/comments, downloads, etc.) as an invalid argument (see: Fallacy for further explanation). Unfortunately, the fact remains that you have yet to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Out of the links provided earlier, only one of them comes close to being reliable. However, upon closer inspection the Massively site is published by Weblogs, Inc. which boasts on its homepage that "we don't tell our bloggers what to write." That hardly seems consistent with policy that explains reliability as having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -Seidenstud (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it does not matter what "arguments" are presented: this is one of the clearest instances ever where the Wikicabal will take the decision, not the Wikiusers. The facts that the subject of the article is relatively new, that the medium is radically different from "mainstream", that the subject of the film and its setting (an MMORPG; set in a science-fictional milieu) are esoteric bordering on fancruftish, and that there is no deep background to any of these, means that critical review is naturally going to be sparce, and that notability will be a variable constant accoridng to, for example, location (say London/Rejkavik versus "'in the deserts of Sudan or the gardens of Japan'"). In a year's time, we will know whether or not this is Wiki-worthy. Therefore, being bold, and breaching all process, I suggest we "delete and salt" for 1 year (i.e. no revival), but that this version be archived in a safe place. In 12 months, the archived version can be recreated and up-dated, and a further AfD held to decide whether or not the effort was worth it. But, folks, my thoughts don't matter :: only the Cabal will decide. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and frankly my jaw is dropping at suggestions as vociferous as the nuclear option of "salt for one year" (!), which is a pretty extreme course of action reserved for spam, pagemove vandalism or persistently recreated junk, none of which this is. Anyway, WP:V is POLICY, yes, the bedrock of Wikipedia. But WP:V is not an arbitrary, mathematical measure or binary yes/no equation to answer "should this article exist"? The intent of WP:V is to establish and verify that our articles are factual and accurate, and not sourced with error and misinformation. It is not a rule for the sake of rules, it is a rule to establish quality control. Now, is there anyone here who seriously doubts the existence or factuality of what we have written, given the sources offered? Are people asserting this could be a hoax or something two guys made up in class one day? Ford MF (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. The article cites no sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vallance (writer)[edit]

Tom Vallance (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, no directly referenced sources. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:51, 28 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, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable secondary sources describing the subject can be found. The current article appears to only be based on editor synthesis from primary sources. Whatever his achievements if they can't be verified by citing independent sources it will not be possible to write a neutral, original research free article about the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find significant coverage on him. Every writer for a newspaper will have his name palstered throughout Google. But hits alone do not suffice for notability. There must be significant coverage of the article's subject, of which is lacking. Neither is being an "expert" considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Every expert doesn't require an encyclopedia article written about him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Woe betide those whose work hasn't been spidered by Gooogle! Anyway, Enchantress says it all. Article needs work, probably some very irritating and time-consuming work at a public library, but so do the vast majority our articles, or else we'd be Britannica. Ford MF (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Street, Markham[edit]

John Street, Markham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a secondary arterial in a suburban city, which doesn't even have a regional road number, and was created by an editor who largely operates under the belief that every single street in Markham should have its own article — he's even created articles on residential cul-de-sacs. Its only cited reference is a map. I should also note that this particular road is just a western continuation of the same roadway as the previously-deleted Esna Park Drive. And, in fact, an earlier article on John Street got canned in this discussion, which means this may even qualify as a G4 speedy. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Umm... The other discussion was the overall discussions for many roads in Markham. It was not just for John Street alone. Therefore, there were lack of discussions on John Street last time. Before you G4 Speedy this, I hope you can AT LEAST read this comment.
Like you said in the other comment at Bur Oak Avenue AfD, roads with notable history may be kept. Well, I think we are missing a point here. John Street is in fact notable. John Street forms the backbone of the old and new Thornhill. John Street, if you take a look at the road signs along John Street between Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street, you can clearly see the signs denoting "Old Thornhill, circa 1794". Therefore, John Street is considered as a historical street. It forms the basis of the old hamlet of Thornhill, as settlers begin progressing up Yonge Street. Thus, John Street is completely able to satisfy the historical needs. In addition, near the road, there are many historical structures.
If that is not enough, take a look at John Street, being a major arterial in Markham / Thornhill. It is considered as the downloaded portion of York Regional Road 71, as YRR 71 ends at Alden Road, and begins again at Centre Street near Bathurst. John Street was one of the portion chaining this connection up. Esna Park, I admit, was not notable. After all, that was my first article in Wikipedia. However, John Street is notable considering the above points. It contains historical heritage. The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:50k is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are, however, obliged to follow WP:RS and WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know full well that it's an essay. It's one that I wrote, and as such is the definition I use to decide whether I think something should or should not get my supporty at AfD. Many other users also use it fior the same reason. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the WP:50k essay suggests that if the road has a significant historic and geographical notability, then the article can be an exception from the 50k rule. Since John Street has historical significance (and really old too, from the 1800s), then 50k does not apply. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk)22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, though simply being one of the oldest streets in a city isn't by itself of significant notability. Being the former main street of a former settlement now amalgamated into Markham makes it less obviously a deletion, but whether that fact gives it enough independent notability outside Markham is questionable - and notability to the extent that it is well known outside Markham irrespective of its local familiarity is what I was getting at with WP:50k. Take, for example, the city where I live. It has close to 150,000 people, and there are three streets with WP articles on the basis of size, plus Baldwin Street, Dunedin, which makes it to article status by dint of its uniqueness. If there was something specific that made John Street unique in some way (say a famous event known as "The John Street Incident", or its prominence as the former site of Markham Town Hall), then I'd reconsider - but as it stands it doesn'y quite qualify. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, Thornhill is popular seen as a separate community from Markham, though it is officially part of the Town of Markham and the City of Vaughan (i.e. it straddles along the Markham / Vaughan border). Therefore, I think the street is famous beyond Markham.
There are several historic landmark on the road, for example, the Edey House, built in 1845, and moved to John Street during the widening of the nearby Yonge Street. The house is an example of the rare Regency Classical Revival style.
Also, the Sutton Frizzel's House, built in the 1800s, now currently located at 18 John Street, its original occupants played a major role in a major historical event of the Rebellion in 1837. A plaque is also erected there by the Town of Markham, recognizing its importance. Does the Rebellions of 1837, and the other historical buildings, and its historical function as the 14th concession meet your criterium of "something specific that made John Street unique in some way"? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 12:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep. Indeed, the Frizzel link and other features are enough to tip it over. If some notability had been shown for the street earlier, then it's likely it wouldn't have been brought up for afd - thank you for providing reasons to support it being kept! Grutness...wha? 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let see if this edit satisfy both Ohconfucius and Bearcat's needs of historical context. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk)22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohconfucius and I are not applying any special standards beyond basic Wikipedia policy around notability and verifiability in reliable sources. Kindly address the needs of Wikipedia policy, not the "needs" of individual users. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It satisfies WP:RS and WP:N, how's that? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the improvements. Note, however, that the cited sources which are important are off-line. Now that the subject's place in history is made clear, I'm sure someone can supply more historical references. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodick Road (Markham, Ontario)[edit]

Rodick Road (Markham, Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a secondary arterial in a suburban city, which doesn't even have a regional road number, and was created by an editor who largely operates under the belief that every single street in Markham should have its own article — he's even created articles on residential cul-de-sacs. It doesn't even cite a reference. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a secondary arterial. A secondary arterial will not have a traffic light. As well, the road is notable. Someone just had not read it thoroughly. First note. Rodick Road is the western boundary of Unionville and Downtown Markham. That might not seem extraordinarily notable, but worth making a note. Second. It was a major issue and a major debate within the town of Markham, and even spread to York Region and Highway 407 ETR, about the extension. The extension connects Rodick from 14th Av to Woodbine Av, and thus the road becomes very busy, and widely used by the local citizens. This has also brought to a major controversial that the Town of Markham proposed to lower the speed limit to discourage excessive traffic. However, that did not become the case. Majority of the road remained to be a Maximum 60 speed limit. The controversial and the debate of Highway 407 Overpass is certainly notable. Third. The road is also made up of several notable landmarks, including First Markham Place, a Chinese themed shopping mall. Fourth. Important buildings of the York Region government is also located on this road. For instance, the Waste Hazard Disposal. Last but not least. The road has different sorts of zonings along the road, and very much describe Markham. It consists of light density residential to townhouses to ethnic themed malls to industrial usages and to waste disposal facilities. The road is also one of the heavier travelled roads in Markham. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road Talk) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:50k is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) 15:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are, however, obliged to follow WP:RS and WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know full well that it's an essay. I wrote it, and as such is the definition I use to decide whether I think something should or should not get my supporty at AfD. Many other users also use it to decide on articles in the same way. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I applaud TCR's efforts to put Markham "on the map". If we all did that, we would have a very comprehensive set of articles on roads around the world. However, the reasons given by TCR to keep the article seem to me to be only his subjective appreciation of the importance of a road, and not necessarily its significance or notability. So delete for now. I'd like to see some independent third party sources which testify to its notability if any road article is to be worth keeping. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion referenced in the nomination. I work for a company that's located on Rodick and use the south end of it in my commute. There is nothing particularly notable about the road other than it has some twisty bits and there is an occasional speed trap set up at the south end of the bridge over the 407, where you're going downhill and the limit is 50 kmh. PKT (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No real major landmark along that road.--JForget 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bur Oak Avenue[edit]

Bur Oak Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most of the article consists of places that are nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a secondary arterial in a suburban city, which doesn't even have a regional road number, and was created by an editor who largely operates under the belief that every single street in Markham should have its own article — he's even created articles on residential cul-de-sacs. It doesn't cite a reference. And, in fact, this road is so new that it doesn't appear in the MapArt Toronto & Area 1999 edition. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: My apologies; this article wasn't created by the same person as the other two. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Bur Oak Avenue had become one of the major arterial in Markham. Just because this road does not have a regional road number, it does not mean that the road is not notable. If that is true, then why not delete Hurontario Street. Well, it does not have a regional road number. The road has now become the backbone of many Markham's new subdivisions. Bur Oak Avenue is widely used by at least 50,000 people. This is one notability. Another notability would be the cultural diversity along the road. Though not mentioned in the article yet (because the article was largely not written by me), the road near the community of Greensborough has European style buildings. In contrast, Wismer Commons is not constructed the same way. As well, the road is planned to be under MAJOR reconstruction by the Town of Markham, and hence, would be very notable once the reconstruction is completed, and that includes a Highway 407 ETR exit. The road will also be planned to further extend. Once again, this extension will serve as a backbone to new developments. Therefore, as well, notable. It is also, the longest municipal-owned road after the reconstruction has happened. Just because it's in a suburban city, it DOES NOT mean it's not notable. If so, would you as well delete roads in Second Line West for Mississauga. Just because it's new, it's does not mean it's not notable. Another notability. If you want history, why not delete every road that is built in 1990s? If 1990s roads are not notable, I'm sure there are many more for you to delete. By the way, Bur Oak is almost 10 years old. A 10 year old road would not be considered as so new. Newer roads include Highway 6 By-Pass, and there are many more handful selections in other cities. Bur Oak is also a "symbol" for Markham, as the road passes through many different cultural and ethnic communities. As well, Bur Oak marks the northern boundary for Historic Markham (AKA Old Markham), and the beginning of new subdivisions. With this boundary line, it is considered as notable as there is a conflict between new buildings and older ones (so there is a little history). By the way, a 1999 MapArt Toronto and Area Atlas is considered as VERY old, not even close to being updated. In that, you probably find Highway 407 ends at Markham Road, rather than Brock Road. You can also find in it, a really blank Mississauga map. Update your map, and then talk about "being new". Also, Bur Oak Avenue is the beginning to the Markham's new strategy of limiting urban sprawl. There are condos found along the route, which is very rare in Markham. Except for Town Centre Blvd. and Bullock Drive, I cannot recall anywhere with condos exist.
And as defense, I don't believe I will create an article for EVERY single street. Cul-de-sacs creations ONLY include Fox Point in Aurora, which was created because of the area's high wealth residential, which in contrast to many urban areas in York Region, it is rare. And, one point, Bur Oak Avenue is not a Cul-de-sac, but it might be so on a 1999 MapArt.
And as another defense point, I'm not just creating articles for Markham, I'm also beginning to make road articles for Vaughan and Richmond Hill. Other people are also as dedicated as I am creating articles for other cities.
P.S. Don't mistake me for not being civil. It's just all that I want to say, and every word comes from my honest opinion.
The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk)22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you have previously created numerous articles about streets with absolutely no claim of encyclopedic notability whatsoever, including several residential cul-de-sacs. Nobody's predicting your future behaviour; I'm citing things you've already done. Secondly, out of all the reasons you've cited here for keeping this article, not a single one of them is consistent with actual Wikipedia policy or precedent for what makes a road notable enough to have an article on here. Roads get Wikipedia articles on the basis of being the centre of American theatre, formerly considered the longest street in the world, the home of several major national institutions or generally recognized as one of the world's most exclusive shopping districts, to name just four examples. Roads do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just because they exist as a crosslink between two regional roads in a city of 260,000 people, or because they happen to have condos on them.
Hurontario Street doesn't have an article because it's an arterial in Mississauga; it has an article because it extends all the way to Collingwood and was one of the original colonization roads that made it possible for people to even begin populating Dufferin and Simcoe Counties two centuries ago...and it used to have an actual provincial highway number, too. It doesn't have an article because it's important to Mississauga — it has an article because its importance transcends Mississauga. Can you recognize the difference there? A road in Markham or Mississauga does not qualify for an article on the basis of being important locally — it would qualify for an article on the basis of being famous enough beyond the city, or at least having enough of a historical context, that somebody living in Vancouver or London or Singapore might need to read an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, how about deleting roads like Browns Line and Islington Avenue. Someone in Vancouver or London or Singapore would not be interested in reading it. Browns Line and Islington Avenue are just examples that they are not famous beyond Toronto. I doubt it's even famous beyond the Greater Toronto Area. If Hurontario Street does not work for you, how would you explain roads like Britannia Road? It's not about having condos on them. It's about the conflict between the old district and the new district of Markham, and how the road plays a major role to Markham's new policy of attempting to stop / limit urban sprawl.

I have also read the message you left for Ilovevancouver90909, I figure all the problem here is "history". Do you really think young roads do not deserve articles? Why would it be so? History... everyday, a new page of history is created. Let's just say, this road is considered as a rapid developing road, and it is expanding (no matter in traffic, or length). This road will become one of the major artery in Markham. It is planned to encomprise many communities. How about looking at it as an proposed road? Proposed roads do not have histories. Same with Bur Oak, which is proposed from Highway 7 down towards Ninth Line. If what you say is true, then I don't think proposed roads deserve articles as well. The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. GreenJoe 00:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:50k is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are, however, obliged to follow WP:RS and WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know full well that it's an essay. I wrote it, and as such is the definition I use to decide whether I think something should or should not get my supporty at AfD. Many other users also use it to decide on articles in the same way. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete let's see some independent third party sources which testify to its notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination and referenced discussion. Bur Oak is not a major arterial road, it is becoming a secondary artery at best. PKT (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is essentially a list of places you'll find along the road, as well as roads that intersect this one. The accompanying list of roads parallel to this is odd and irrelevant. This road is nothing more than generic municipal infrastructure, with no definable historical or cultural characteristics beyond its mere existence. So, while it verifiably exists, it is an unencyclopedic topic. Mindmatrix 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I can find nothing about this road that is notable, nothing at all, except for the number of people who have added to the page over the course of two years. If several people care so much about this road, why not leave it up? People in Singapore won't be required to read it. Elan26 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

The reason of why so many are caring about it because this road affects so many people. It is considered as an aterial (though some non-residents of Markham may not agree) in Markham. It spans across Berczy Village, Wismer Commons, Greensborough, parts of Old Markham, and Cornell. It is the backbone and had been supporting new subdivisions to develop in the eastern end of the town. It also marks the transition line of old historical building and new subdivision townhouses. I agree with Elan26. If so many people care about it, why not leave it up? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 12:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number of edits or editors is not a justification to keep. WP is not a directory. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirected and merged existing content into WNYB; non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WNYP-TV[edit]

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

Notabity for this tiny UHF TV station in a minor market is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirected and merged content to WNYB, the current operation on this same channel in Jamestown as the information was so sparse it was easily inserted into that station. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 07:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Association for Person Centred Psychotherapy and Counselling[edit]

Portuguese Association for Person Centred Psychotherapy and Counselling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability for this organization cannot be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For a 3 year old article, it has had remarkably few edits:[42] Doesn't appear to be a notable organization with no references. Perhaps it is suitable for Portugese Wikipedia instead. Artene50 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information. There is no entry in PT Wikipedia, but I googled it on Google.pt and found their site -- the home page is more or less the same as the Wikipedia article. It has a board of directors, a "scientific council" and a number of "professionals" associated with it. Its journal seems to be in remission (last issue 2002), but it is on-going in its training (in conjunction with Lisbon Autonomous University) and in its events. Whether it is notable is not clear. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On further thought, if it is notable, it is not notable in any context outside Portugal. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, or more accurately try again. This AfD is a clear example of one that should have been broken up with each model nominated individually, as some are clearly more notable then others. No objection to a speedy re-nom on those where consensus appeared to be delete. Wizardman 22:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca_Golden[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bianca Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nnenna Agba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heather Kuzmich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lisa Jackson (Model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toccara Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ann Markley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brittany Brower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cassandra Whitehead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lisa D'Amato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kim Stolz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah VonderHaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jael Strauss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete) – (View AfD)

Subject fails BIO1E. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per my above nom. L0b0t (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toccara Jones No opinion on the rest. Jones was the host of a game show that lasted 85 episodes. As the host, this makes her notable, IMO. Dismas|(talk) 02:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toccara Jones per Dismas; reasonably notable career after the show. Possibly keep for Kim Stolz as well, since she's been on TV regularly since. I'd redirect all the others to an appropriate article, either a list of contestants or the article on that season of ANTM. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jones and Stolz they are successful models, have hosted numzerous shows or worked as correspondants and had small acting gigs. Markley is one of the most successful contestants of the show (winners included) so I guess that makes her notable. Strauss and Golden have been discussed a while back and the result was Keep as they are both successful and memorable contestants. Kuzmich has gotten a lot opf articles in various newspapers for her Asperger (including the New-York Times and one in the French version of Closer) so that makes her notable too. She also co-holds the record for most CoverGirl of the Week titles. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to renominate separately. The individuals are not of the same notability. But here goes:

By the way, if every runner-up deserves his own page, why was Nik Pace's deleted? As for the models's achievement you can see their picture galleries here: http://all-antm.net/index.php . Markley (Cosmo, Cover Magazine, 2 Style Covers, face of Free People Wear), D'Amato (face of Daftbird clothing, Lip service clothing and Clementine clothing + several magazine spreads by Amanda Brooks) and Strauss (face of Hitch Couture) all have over 100 pictures of printwork. And to answer Ohconfucius, Kim Stolz has hosted the MTV movie awards, is an MTV VJ, covered the Fiercees for MTV and has had several covers (Knit, Go NYC...) so to me she's a keep. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fierce; someone actually put these all up. Anyway:
    • Toccara Jones/Kim Stolz: Keep, as both have been television presenters and are still active. I think Toccara is obvious (Celebrity Fit Club contestant, BET host), but Kim has also done a lot of MTV (she did some interviewing at the MTV Awards thing recently).
    • Lisa D'Amato: Weak Keep. She has found some notoriety outside of the ANTM bubble, with coverage on Perez Hilton's site and such.
    • Everyone else: Delete. They have done nothing notable enough to be on Wikipedia. SKS2K6 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for Heather Kuzmich, spokesperson for autism/asperger, did a Carol's daughter add, very popular contestant to this day. Also strong keep for Ann Markley (in the top three most successful) and Jael Strauss (dealt with the death of a friend by drug overdose in the public eye, had her WTF moments like when she got thrown in the pool by 50Cent, her article states she was voted as one of the most memorable contestants by AOL, by the way so were Markley, Jones and Bower, has a huge campaign with Hitch couture).
  • Keep for Toccara Jones and Kim Stolz, TV personalities, do I really need to explain? Same goes for Lisa D'Amato, she seems to have had some good coverage.
  • Weak Keep for Bianca Golden, she walked for several designer, was one of the most outrageous contestants on the show, had a spread in Essence recently, it hasn't been a year since Cycle 9 was over and she already has booked quite many jobs. Same weak keep goes for Sarah Vonderhaar, she is a model, musician and, I think, actress. Her CD got her some news coverage.
  • For the other ones I don't really know. I mean, they don't really level up to the other girls in terms of notability but each one of them has something that makes her notable inside ANTM and as Toccara Jones said on the Tyra Show, ANTM is a quite high rated show and being notable in it sometimes is enough to make you notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for Brittany Bower, her page has a lot of links and she has been featured in several magazine.
  • Keep for Heather Kuzmich, Jael Strauss, Toccara Jones and Kim Stolz. No need to talk about the last two, it has been covered already. About Jael, if there is one notable non-top-three contestant in ANTM, that's her, she has a longstanding deal with Hitch Couture, sued after someone published some underage naked pictures of her... Heather is to Autism what Caridee is to Psoriasis or Fatima to FGM.
  • Weak Keep for Bianca Golden, Ann Markley, Nnenna Agba and Lisa D'Amato. Bianca is quite successful for a non winning contestant in a recent cycle, she appeared in a music video for Will I Am, has walked many runways and had a spread in Essence (which is kinda big in the "black model" world). Lisa, well this has been covered amready too. Ann is quite successful even though it is not so covered by gossip sites or such, same for Nnenna although on a lower level.
  • Weak delete for the rest. Having been on the show, won CoverGirl titles or quit makes them a little notable nonetheless.

To me the main problem with those article is not notability, it's that some of them need to be rewritten a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.129.225.186 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still not convinced. Again I must stress that a model getting work as a model is no more notable than a chef getting work in a restaurant or a teacher getting work at a school. Toccara Jones is the only one here who even tries to demonstrate some notability outside of ANTM. One girl has Asperger's, so what. Many people have many afflictions. Having a disease, even being a model with a disease is just not notable. D'Amato gets drunk and exposes herself, that's not notable, that's just a weeknight on Bourbon St. None of these articles contain anything that could not be fit into the articles for their respective seasons on ANTM or, better still, transwikied to the ANTM dedicated wiki. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not that I don't generally agree with you, but I gotta point out a few things: [A] Heather got coverage on the New York Times. That's gotta count for something. (I know I voted for her deletion earlier, but I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate here.) [B] Kim Stolz is now an MTV personality, doing things for MTV News and co-hosting the preshow for the MTV Video Awards.
      • The NYT article only mentions her BECAUSE she is a contestant on ANTM that has Asperger's, not because she is a notable person with Asperger's or because Asperger's has made her notable. She still fails BIO1E. Stolz writes for one of MTV's websites, has she achieved acclaim or notoriety in the field of journalism? No, she just has a byline on website. She hosted a preshow for the MTV movie awards, so what? Just being on television is not notable. These subjects, quite simply, fail here, here, and here. Notoriety and notability are not the same thing. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well apparently there are people who are convinced so that must mean something, especially when it comes to notability. Kim has been on numerous shows, that makes her notable. Heather has gotten coverage even in France about her Asperger, that makes her notable. Markley, Golden, Strauss, Brower have had a lot of print work, are still talked about to this day and are amongst the most memorable contestants on the show ever, winners included. There have been some print about them and just by the show's (and the Tyra Show's) ratings, they should be notable. Siemgi 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, a model getting work as a model is not notable. Yes they get print work, they should, that's their job. Going to work and doing your job are not notable accomplishments. As for the ratings of Tyra's show and ANTM, they are irrelevant to this discussion. Notability is not inherited and being notable for only one event is not good enough. You say "...they are talked about to this day..." but fame and notability are not the same thing. Yes, these people exist. Yes, they were on a television show. Yes, they get employment in their chosen profession. They have achieved fame. They have not, however, done anything superlative or notable in any field of endeavor. They are not, therefore, notable according to our published guidelines here, here, and here. What is it about these articles that you feel could not be included in the articles for the respective ANTM cycles or, better yet, transwikied to the ANTM dedicated wiki? L0b0t (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are notable contestants in a notable show, that makes them therefore notable. Aside from that they have achieve notoriety, which is a notable fact for reality TV contestants. And by the way all articles have already been "transwikied", the links need to be fixed though... Siemgi 17:27 12 June 2008 (UTC).
              • They are non-notable contestants on a semi-notable show. That's why they're up for deletion. The winners are notable in that a) they won, and b) they usually stay in the public eye somehow. Many of the non-winners don't. For example, what exactly has Keenyah done? Jayla? Cassie? Ebony? Bre? Just because they were on a few episodes does not make them worth enough to be on Wikipedia. I would even argue that some of the winners are notable solely for winning; for example, what exactly have Naima Mora and Nicole Linkletter done since? SKS2K6 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The thing is we're not talking about them. Bre has had quite some work by the way (print and runway) and so did Nicole L. But here people who want to keep the articles are talking about Kuzmich (in the NY Times and record holder for the most CoverGirl of the Week titles), Golden (on a lot of runways and in Essence), Brower (in quite a few magazines), Stolz (on MTV), Jones (on BET), Strauss (Hitch Couture), Markley (lots of print work) and D'Amato (celebrity sites and a lot of print), not Jayla, Ebony or Brooke Miller. Those are notable contestants. They pretty much defined their cycles (for some even more than the actual winners) or got quite a few acting gigs (Stolz and Jones). I'm not saying any contestant is notable, I'm saying those 7 are. If you asked for which non winners I think are notable I'd say them, Joanie Dodds, Kahlen Rondot, Natasha Galkina, Mel Rose, Eugena Washington Mercedes Scelba-Shorte, Elyse Sewell, and maybe April Wilkner, Bre Scullark, Cassandra Whitehead, Jade Cole and Camille McDonald. And that's about it so please don't twist what I'm saying. Siemgi 20:34 12 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Siemgi, please check out the following criteria for inclusion:BIO (this is the standard that all articles about people must meet), entertainers (this is the basic standard of inclusion for models, and Bio1e (this standard covers people who are only notable for 1 event, such as appearing on ANTM). These articles fail to meet all three standards. They are, therefore, not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. As per wp:BIO1E they might merit mention in articles about their respective season of ANTM and they are certainly well suited for the ANTM dedicated wiki but they are not notable enough for articles of their own. L0b0t (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • From what I read, being part of several notable events makes you notable, right? Well D'Amato, Golden, Markley Stolz and Jones definitely fit that part, Strauss and Brower are still borderline to me. Kuzmich definitely fits the fandom part and the unique contribution part (bringing light on Asperger). And most of those I cited above meet criterium one. User:Siemgi 01:17 13 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps you should read the links again, as they do not say that at all. They say:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent (Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.) and independent of the subject. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

  • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.
  • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

* The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

  • Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Sorry for the long quote but I feel it is important to establish just what the criteria for inclusion are. The also-rans on a television game show just don't cut the mustard. L0b0t (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well to me the NY Times is independant, so is AOL, or Perez Hilton. And as I said, they all have been on various Tv programs:

Golden: ANTM, The TYra Show, Rip the Runway, Project Runway Markley; ANTM, Project Runway, Made of Honor Stolz: Lots of MTV stuff, ANTM, The Tyra Show Jones: All of Us, Girlfriend, BET stuff, Celebrity Fit Club, ANTM or had significant following: Kuzmich: again the NY Times, 9 CoverGirl of the Week titles As someone said, they need to be rewritten, not deleted. Siemgi 14:49 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep all some probably are notable others maybe not, but this bundled AfD isn't the way to go. Try relisting individually. RMHED (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. While the article's pretty well-written, the delete side's rationale was stronger to me. Wizardman 20:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Whitman[edit]

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

Article (which is unreferenced) makes no claims of being or doing anything that makes her notable. Running for Congress and being the daughter of a governor are both significant things in a person's life, but neither make a person Wikipedia-notable, and when there's nothing more that she's done, there's no reason to have this article. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I will have more to say if it becomes necessary, but for right now: As the person who created this article, I really have to wonder, what's the rush? The AfD tag was placed on the article only 23 minutes after I created it. I was planning on doing more work on it tomorrow, and will still do so, but why does it have to have a deletion hanging over it? I will put in some more biographical info on her, but the fact remains that the most notable thing she has done (in my opinion) is run for Congress, and come in second in a crowded Republican primary for an open seat in a district that (while competitive) has always elected a Republican. To me, that seems notable enough, especially when I see the number of local politicians (from various countries) who have articles. The fact that her mother was not only a governor, but a high-ranking (and controversial) federal official, combined with her second-place run for Congress, adds to her notability. But aside from all this, I just find the almost immediate nomination to be very surprising, and unnecessary. Neutron (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated because the article was of decent length to assert notability: running for Congress and being CTWhitman's daughter appeared to be the most notable things she's done, so because they're not notable, I found AFD quite appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have been more appropriate to discuss the issues on the article's talk page. An article should have more than 23 minutes to become a complete article before bureaucratic procedures and five-day deadlines are invoked. If that's not the policy, it should be. Neutron (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By Neutron's own admission, Whitman is most notable for coming in second. That's not enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. She also can't inherit notability from her mother. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, and notability is not inherited. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: her candidacy did attract some notice in the national press - see e.g. [43], [44], so even though she doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, I think she does just about satisfy WP:BIO. Scog (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have added reliable, independent sources to the article from before she became a political candidate, which I believe demonstrates that she satisfies the general notability guideline. Accurizer (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is not inherited, and neither of those cites are "in-depth;" the first discusses several candidates in what is described as a wide-open field, the second a mere couple paragraphs boiling down to "She's running" and "Oh, yeah, she's Christine Whitman's daughter." While I generally agree about the obnoxiousness of shotgun AfDs, and WP:HEY applies, the creator has five days to convince us.  RGTraynor  13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to convince anybody of anything. If Wikipedia wants to discourage people from creating articles, and to have articles for lesser-known politicians simply because they are the mayor of some little town, while better-known politicians do not simply because they haven't won anything yet, that's Wikipedia's problem, not mine. Neutron (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how WP:POLITICIAN applies, although I think its requirements have been satisfied by the additions to the article. (I think that guideline needs to be modified, but I will deal with that there, if at all.) However, WP:BLP1E (which I never saw before) does not apply. It applies to people with a "low profile" or who were connected with "one event." This person is a politician who is trying to have as high a profile as possible. Her campaign signs were all over the place, I saw them. And a political campaign is not "one event", it includes dozens if not hundreds of events. If any guideline applies, it is WP:POLITICIAN, as defective as it may currently be. Neutron (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect (to Christine Todd Whitman) or Weak keep - Doesn't seem to have a lot of meat, but could possibly written better/expanded. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Damn near speedyable if not for her mother. Merge the most interesting bits to her mother's article. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Amply satisfies WP:RS and WP:POLITICIAN, which explicitly states that losing a race is no more a guarantor of non-notability than winning one is a guarantor of the opposite. To wit: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Done and done. Ford MF (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fated Genesis[edit]

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

Amateur-created RPG. Article has a highly promotional atmosphere. Linked sites do nothing to establish notability or clarify the nature of the 'attention' this uncompleted project has purportedly garnered in or out of its niche group. In fact, it's not even clear where on said sites the game is mentioned. Google of title turns up no relevant results. Suggested deletion as non-notable, possibly as promotional. Vianello (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete... apparent WP:CRYSTAL as under production, fails WP:RS due to lack of reliable sources (forums do not count), obvious WP:COI and possible WP:ADVERT as user name of primary editor (who has no other contributions) is same as creator of the subject of the article. The article is essentially just a "plot summary" without encyclopedic tone or notability. --Kinu t/c 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold it is apparent that the user is going to add references to establish notability, I would suggest waiting a period of 24 hour for te user to establish notability.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's precisely why AfDs last five days. --Kinu t/c 05:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, please excuse my ignorance.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In answer to Esradekan, all four. Minkythecat (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability shown at this point. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hold please: I am currently on a restricted high school server so cannot yet access the sites mentioned to produce direct links to pages refering to my project. I intend to add these within the next 24 hours when I get to my home computer. I also intend to add more informative sections to the article detailing the game in a referential way. Please consider keeping my page. I also intend to add images/diagrams of gameplay as soon as I can. Please hold! And I do not believe it is a conflict of interest. It is intended by me to be a source of useful information about the game's mechanics, story and setting. Dark Gaia
  • Reply. Being the creator of the game makes its status as a conflict of interest somewhat unavoidable. Also, simply citing chatter about it on forums does not necessarily even prove notability on said forum, let alone in general. Something with broader applicability will be required. No need to ask for judgment to be held, though. All AfD submissions last for at least five days. - Vianello (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As for references outside of the forums, I can only post a link to the actual application to my previous game to prove that I do make games, or post work in progress screenshots to show that it exists. I contest the CRYSTAL very strongly. There are pages on wikipedia already devoted to games upon which worlk hasn't even started. there are no screenshots etc etc. DARK GAIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Gaia (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Whether the game exists or whether you make games is not at issue. Also, the status of other articles is not a valid appeal. Look at this section in the "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Debates" article. I'm starting to run the risk of spamming this page, so if you have questions, please contact me on my talk page. - Vianello (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.I have added some verifiable references from various sources, and I intend to add some images too, however I do not yet know how to have images displayed in a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Gaia (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this is more notable than any other amateur rpg out there.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another non-notable fan creation made with RPG Maker. Edward321 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks a single reliable source to establish notability. Someoneanother 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Valley Stream, New York#Valley Stream School District #13 --JForget 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howell Road School[edit]

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

Fails WP:N - unremarkable elementary school. ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAttendee[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. No external, third-party references are cited, and from a quick search on my part, I haven't been able to find any information on this platform that is substantial enough to cover notability requirements. csaribay (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim to notability, no outside sources Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. 8 ghits if you subtract the 2 wiki entries. An emerging standard should get some momentum and coverage before creating an entry. Take a look at some of the other technology standards covered by short articles like 10BROAD36, which has about 8000 gits. --Faradayplank (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. It is clear that this article has serious issues that need to be resolved, but currently there is no consensus to delete the material outright. A few editors have proposed merging this material elsewhere to help alleviate notability concerns - whether the best option for the future of this information is to merge it or improve the standalone article is one that should be carefully considered by editors actively maintaining the article. Shereth 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta Narayana[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bhaktivedanta Narayana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article still does not state, much less prove, how its subject is notable - it only states that he is a "spiritual leader." Also the sources are not reliable. The monthly publication, Sri Bhagavat Patrika, is self published. (That this journal is a self publication was not pointed out in the last debate and was given as a reason for voting "Keep.") Also, the website used for the article Pure Bhakti, is also self published. This religious leader's guru, and his religious institute, are red links, as both are non notables. In all, the article still fails to have any reliable sources with information to meet Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recent discussion in previous CfD. I don't think anything has substantially changed since then. The individual is mentioned in third-party works that are referenced. Yes, the article needs work, but I don't see deletion as the answer here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. These texts are about ISKCON. In passing, there is mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This article has failed to establish notability and is an advertisement of sorts. It is impossible to account for all people named Narayana in India. Dozens of them are svamis, you will find it with the google seach for Narayana svami or Narayana Maharaja. Please also refer to WP:ENC. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FREE ADVERTISING SPACE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNSOURCED MATERIAL. Not a single claim or information in the article have sources and the whole article does not comply with WP:CITE guidelines, a search of reliable sources doe not support any of it. One can not rely on blogs or self published material to establish notability. All other references quoted are occasional and incidental, have nothing to do with the notability of the person and are often not from reliable sources and are not about the subjects notability.
Living persons bio must abide by:
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability
  • No original research
This entry shows absence of all and thus should not exist. None are found that directly relate to the living person called Bhaktivedanta Narayana. He is mention exclusively in passing and number of hits does not warrant the inclusion.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
MBest-son (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. The subject, by himself, does not meet notability criteria. Shovon (talk) 19:19, 2 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of the book, The Hare Krishna Movement, is ISKCON (also known as the Hare Krishna Movement). In order for this reference to establish notablity on Bhaktivedanta Narayana, he would have to be the subject of the text - and he is not. He is only mentioned in a few pages out of this 448 pages text, which is on ISKCON. This article is lacking in references which cite him as the subject. These must be demonstrated, otherwise, the subject still fails even the basic criteria for notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. It is important to point out that in these materials, he is only mentioned in passing - there is only mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin closing note Application of Notability Criteria:
A claim was put forward (by MPerel) that Bhaktivedanta Narayana has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This is incorrect and he was not a subject of any such material and was only noted in passing. Thus Basic criteria is not met. Maybe such material exists in Hindi, thus subject should be part of Hindi Wiki. As far as English publications it is clear that the depth of coverage is not substantial, and multiple or any independent sources are not present that are needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability, and this is evident from the above searches. No other sources contribute towards proving the notability of the subject. The only sources are self-published and unreliable. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. As accepted the barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Additional criterias are not applicable and no evidence of any of the same is found or can be found from any reliable sources in English. No works focus upon the subject. See: WP:INHERITED that provides cover for this policy and requres at best a redirect or merge to ISKCON that is the subjects inherited notability object. MBest-son (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not notable per MBeston. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per MPerel, Bhaktivedanta Narayana is the subject of part of a chapter, pp.37-39, subtitled Narayana Maharaja, in The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant And Change and is mentioned on pp138, 215, 249 of that book. One hardly needs a whole book on a person to prove notability! In addition, cited therein are other works, like The "Routinization of Charisma" and the Charismatic: The Confrontation Between ISKCON and Narayana Maharaja -- Irvin H. Collins (Srila Das), which is chapter 13 of an academic book published by Columbia University Press. Just these two are sufficient, and high-quality, reliable sources. In addition, I note that the language of a source is irrelevant to its reliability and whether it can be used to prove notability.John Z (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are two sources, but they do not show the subject to be notable. One source is a chapter in a book on ISKCON, the other is a few pages in a book on ISKCON. Both of these two sources Do Not state that Bhaktivedanta Narayana is notable. It is important to note that these two sources only discuss Bhaktivedanta's relationship with ISKCON. If Bhaktivedanta Swami's relationship with ISKCON is notable then these sources could be used on the ISKCON page to discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)
As far as I understand it, I do not think your interpretation of the relevant guidelines is a common or standard one, or one which enjoys much support at Afd or elsewhere. Of course, if one subtracts whatever is notable about a person, including his relationships with other notable subjects, then one is left with nothing much. But this style of argument is a useless tautology. There is no requirement that a source state its subject is notable; that there is a substantial amount of material is enough. There is much more in each source - where this person's name is in the title - than usually deemed necessary.John Z (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of an ongoing campaign to discredit Srila Narayan Maharaja, The nominator 125.24.241.246 did so anonymously. To redirect his page to a page of his detractors at ISKCON is unacceptable. This article DOES have sufficient, and high-quality, reliable sources.Syama (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The main reference for this article, cited above, is provided from a chapter in a book on ISKCON called The Hare Krishna Movement. This link above, "Routinization of Charisma" is just one chapter in this book - and it is about ISKCON. Bhaktivedanta Narayana is only mentioned in this chapter - it is about one issue - Bhaktivedanta's relationship with ISKCON (for a specific period of time). References on this gentleman's relationship to ISKCON are not enough to establish notablity as long as the subject himself remains non notable. The subject is still about a non notable and sources have not been provided to show the subject's notablity outside of his relationship to ISKCON. If Bhaktivedanta Swami's relationship with ISKCON is notable then these sources could be used on the ISKCON page to discuss Bhaktivedanta Narayana's relationship with ISKCON as a section of the ISKCON page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to ISKCON per above. Culturalrevival (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as original research, unclear notability. Mangled grammar → unlikely search term → no redirect. Grand Roi, all of Wikipedia is a work in progress, and yet we do delete parts of it occasionally.  Sandstein  17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbitaly Drop Shock Troopers[edit]

Orbitaly Drop Shock Troopers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of a previously deleted article. None of the information presented is cited - it's all unsourced original research. Probably isn't notable enough to require a content fork from Halo (series) or Halo 2. csaribay (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I didn't notice that particular article you mentioned. I'm in favor of redirection, even if the typo is unlikely. csaribay (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does the subject really require a WP:CFORK from Factions of Halo#United Nations Space Command? I don't necessarily dismiss the inclusion of this content, but I don't believe this particular subject requires its own article where a simple expansion of the above article accomplishes sensible inclusion. csaribay (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In such a case then I would recommend at worst moving the article to rename it and then merging and redirecting with deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Shereth 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayuma (band)[edit]

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

Notability and Verifiability in question. Notability issues due to failure to pass the requirements in WP:BAND. Only claim to notability is winning Red Horse Muziklaban which only gives a recording contract with Viva Records but no sources suggest that they already released a charted album. Verifiability issues as well as Google search reveals no independent reliable sources. Note that "gayuma" means love potion in Filipino so you might get false positives.--Lenticel (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. A merger, if still desired, can be discussed elsewhere.  Sandstein  17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive nominee[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary definition of a made up term. It should be in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Why not have "unreliable car" or "hot date" or "blue trousers" as articles. It's just two words, presumptive and nominee. It is not a political office. I presume Obama to be president so why not Presumptive President. I expect Ralph Nader to lose very badly so why not "presumptive super-loser". This article needs to be stopped or Wikipedia is a joke.Presumptive (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • MERGE: This article should be merged with the Candidate article, it seems to make more sense there. It IS more than a dictionary definition though, so it should'nt be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.213.165 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Formatting of AfD fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, this is essentially a dictionary entry. Uvaduck (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not necessarily a bad concept for an article, but this version is pure OR. Could be workable with a shift to concentration on how when and why the media uses the term, but that would require a lot of tune-up. Townlake (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hard to see how this can be expanded properly beyond a dictionary definition... it could be piled with minute trivia listing all "presumptive nomienees" ever but that doesn't seem encyclopedic. Nomination looks dictionary defintion-ish too. --Rividian (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this article is currently linked to from the main page (T:ITN) --Rividian (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article needs sources but it's already more than a dicdef. Pburka (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. The question of when to desginate the "presumptive nominee" has played a major role in the 2008 primary season, and the term has widespread use, so it is certainly possible to provide sources on the topic. So I agree not at all with the nominator. I do agree with Townlake that a rewrite and sourcing is required, or stubification with minimal sourcing for the time being, but I don't see deletion as necessary. -- 18.244.6.28 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Candidate: it's a similar enough topic, and there's widespread precedent for discussing related concepts in one article: for example, Nonflammable and Flammable are both aspects of Flammability, and the Wright brothers don't have their own articles. Surely this could be merged into the other one. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This probably makes the most sense. This is a term related to being a candidate for political office, it belongs in that article. --Rividian (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still favor deletion, but this is a viable alternative. Townlake (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It would probably make more sense there. It is more than a dicdef, though. Soxred 93 02:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not a new term. Google it. Also, this article has existed since 2004 or 2005. It's not harming anyone to keep it. No one should have to scroll through the "Politics" article just to read a sentence about a Presumptive Nominee, so I think this should exist. You people have only noticed it's existance after it was added that Obama is a presumptive nominee. Since it's on the front page, we are getting a lot of skeptics bringing hate on this. I think this should stay.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think it's a pretty good article. We shouldn't have to skip through the whole Candidate article just to find something about PResumptive nominees. This deserve it's own article as much as Bexley, Ohio deserves not to be in the Columbus, Ohio article. Keep the Presumptive nominee article. It has been there for years and I think there could be good information added, too.----159.61.240.222 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is not a "made up term." Its a real and unique enough term used, yes, the article needs to be cleaned up for sure/expanded, but it can grow more with more encyclopedic content. Redirecting to "candidate" doesn't really cut it, the reader won't get any encyclopedic content on presumptive nominees, "candiate" is too vague. Epson291 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's useful to the reader and informative about a real term - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:USEFUL? It would be useful to define every term a dictionary would, but we're not a dictionary. --Rividian (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is someone who obviously does not understand the Wikipedia concept, only registered for the purpose of nominating this AFD, perhaps to have some laughs. Ridiculous. --Rita Moritan (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is it obvious that the nominator does not understand Wikipedia concepts? Also, what does any of this have to do with the actual article? BassoProfundo (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- maybe replace its links with links to wiktionary? There's not much that can be said here except for a definition of the term. Coemgenus 15:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEO says "To support... an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." A lot of the keep voters seem to merely want to keep the article because they've heard of the term, but policy and inclusion guidelines are about more than just keeping articles on subjects we've heard of deleting articles on topics we haven't heard of, so a proper close of this AFD will involve looking at whether there is actually any evidence that there are sources about this term... right now there are just sources that use this term in passing. --Rividian (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nom is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and this term is used enough that it deserves a page. Similar to superdelegate, the term's frequent use in the current election has cemented its place in history and it can be expanded upon contain much more than just a dictionary definition. The term is used and discussed in the media in great detail. See, for example, an NPR piece discussing what it means to be the presumptive nominee (link). Oren0 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although I disagree with your overall position, and I don't think the nominator is particularly relevant, I'd like to thank you for providing an actual source to demonstrate the article's notability. That being said, I don't think that the linked segment focuses on the meaning of being a presumptive nominee as opposed to true one. Without more clear sources on this distinction, I am in favor of a merge with Candidate. BassoProfundo (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, optionally redirect to Candidate - in spite of the assertions that this is a "good" article and in spite of the fact that the nominator may, indeed, be a single-purpose account, this article is far from appropriate for Wikipedia. There are no sources to establish notability - the sources in the article merely show that Bush, Kerry, Obama and McCain are/have been presumptive nominees, and are little more than examples of it being used. The article delves into some interesting discussion on the nomination process - any of which belongs elsewhere - but in the end, does not establish "presumptive nominee" as anything more than a neologism and a dictionary definition which it is not likely to rise above. Arkyan 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak, presumptive keep. The term has been thrown about enough recently to be notable, and I don't know if it's similar enough to "candidate" (we assume McCain and Obama will be the choices at conventions, but things could happen between now and August/September that would cause changes) for a merge. If "delete" becomes consensus, I won't be saddened, however. Spell4yr (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Candidate for reasons stated above. The bottom part of the article (Obama example) should be removed as recentism. -- Alexf42 10:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Achingly Strong Keep - as a Canadian, the American political system is very much alien to me and series of shorter articles are far more useful than a lot of merged ones.139.48.25.61 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an important aspect of the American political system, is relevant and useful, and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhebert (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work, but it is a notable subject and should remain in Wikipedia.—Chris! ct 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is, as stated, a dictionary definition of a media-created term. It's only use is to write shorter headlines. Not wikipedia-worthy.Zavtrakat (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this is a media-created term, but considering the media's role in American politics, it is a valid term nonetheless. Lovelac7 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an essential part of modern American politics. For example, now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, he can spend his time and effort fighting McCain instead of Clinton. The same goes for McCain as well. As for this particular article, it needs work, but it could be a useful page with a little effort. I say that we keep it for now, and if the article's not substantially better by the Democratic and Republican conventions, we should then look to merge it into another article. Lovelac7 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like it or not, the concept of "presumptive nominee" has played a big part in this year's campaigns, and isn't likely to go away. Editors are actively improving the article. If it ever was deleteworthy as just a "dictionary definition", it shouldn't have taken until 2008 for an article first written in 2004 to be declared so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Darrow (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -clearly referenced in the article as a notable concept used in third party publications. The content is also currently applicable to the US only, so at nearly the same size as candidate merging it would unduly slant that article. The historical content makes this much more than a dictionary definition. As the nominator is a single purpose account, given the subject and timing I feel it is impossible to assume good faith about this nomination. SPA nominations need to be rejected on principle in my mind. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Do Not Merge -- As per MickMacNee, merging would unbalance the other article towards being primarily American. The subject is noteworthy, and is expandable, with plenty of potential to be written on. Fieari (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This subject can clearly be expanded and is worth the article. It is a noteworthy term used by every major news source. Its not something thats better off in a dictionary because its not a word it's two words and a worthwile term. Certanily can be expanded and with more and or better refsVintrino (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is relevant and related to the American political system, and since it has been here for something like nearly five years why did the person decide that now this article should go? Obviously if for nearly five years there have been no complaints - why complain now?
  • Strong Keep. --99.230.153.253 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
  • Keep - more than a dictionary word, because it is a concept that can be quite complex. Ingolfson (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not WP:MADEUP --Wiendietry (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick search provided some evidence of the term being discussed, and not just used here and here. RMHED (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - 1) Yeah like User:Xinyu said, this article has been here 4 5yrs, so y now does have a problem w it? This term IS IN NO WAY like 'blue trousers or the other bullsh*t examples Presumptive (talk) gave.

2)Strong Keep. Just as superdelegate is very important now bc of this historic election, presumptive nominee is being repeatedly used by media. So the youth who come want to know what that title means and why Obama/McCain are called that instead of just 'pres candidate'. It is not a "made up term". Yes the article needs to be cleaned up for sure/expanded, but it can grow more with more encyclopedic content. Redirecting to "candidate" doesn't really cut it bc the reader won't get any encyclopedic content on presumptive nominees on that article page. 70.108.123.119 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_5&oldid=1116722241"