Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

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 speedy delete. per IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Fourtune[edit]

Endless Fourtune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as a copyvio (CSD G12). I do not speak Farsi, but doing a search on random chunks of text on both pages showed considerable overlap. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

دانشگاه امام رضا[edit]

دانشگاه امام رضا (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can anyone tell whether this, if translated into English, would be an acceptable article? There had been some contact information that I deleted, but you can see it here to see what I'm talking about. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to the Farsi Wikipedia — This article does not exist on neither the Arabic nor the Farsi Wikipedia, to A2 does not apply. MuZemike (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'd be preferable to find out if it belongs on a Wikipedia at all before transwikiing it.—Largo Plazo (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's the Google Translate result of the first paragraph:

تاريخچه: expansion of his part, Hmuarh Wiki Web Rhnmudhay Hkimanh بنيانگذار Republican sacred Islamic regime of Iran, attended before Khomeini (who should) Bode Last products, where Rasta Astan Jerusalem Rizvi Sabh Der Transcendently Khaddaond endorsements and directions SPECIAL attended Thamanalhjaj Ali Moussa Reza (p) And Ba Rahenmyerai Mudbranh most Rhebri Dr_khasos place undue Mcharkt Astan Quds Razavi Bray find Ahdhay Andria and Amozci der Sr, attended the Ayat Allah and I respected preacher Tabsi Astan Jerusalem and Moses دانشگاه Rizvi, a دانشگاه Imam Reza (p) Cf by the title of wiki Web Manmtren Nhadhay Amozci, Andria, and Bhdachti Dermani Astan Quds Razavi Nmodnd report. Ba Ke دانشگاه states where Imam Reza (p) for the Web Beissti Haz qualitative and quantitative, der surface ديگر significant scientific centers and in conformity with minimum Ba Maiarhai Republican strongest Islamist Iran. Der were investigating where the government, پس Web پيگيريهاي on and the establishment of institutions based Aiinnamh Amozc high Gerdolte and Girantvai, Asasnamh دانشگاه Imam Reza (p) der Sisd and چهل Chmin and highly respected session CHOREY coup Andria Morg 18 Bahman 1373 important supplier correction resolution گرفت . The obvious Ke Last founding چنين دانشگاهي, my goals multi-Ra پيگيري Maikardh Last Web and Wayne Rowe نگاهي Darim Mahorhai the original targets where Ke der PCC Miaid: 1 Neroy grew up humanitarian Karamd der Reshethaai contractor and supplier Niaz part of his expansion Bray Sr 2 generation and Danesh 3 Venaori knowledge and Artqai Moukeit billion, and Jahani Framntgahai دانشگاههاي Sr 4 Afsaic Engraving and تأثيرگذاري Astan Quds University Rizvi mainland, the title of the Wiki Web Nhadhay بزرگ Andria The joke where Ra Mevalst دانشگاه Ke added in response to the satisfaction (p) and Andria Falit Amozci Gifts Ra Sall 1378 Bnabr Web design created دانشگاه honest and correct CHOREY Hotel and visited science, investigations and Vaori Ba پذيرش Daneshjo through the Web and are required Srasri دانشگاهها der Rudy de Manhattan Ktabdari and Terpitbdni der place in the center Amozc Rizvi served Jerusalem Astan Agaz Nmod and A. Sall 1381 BAINS Directed by the duration Hdn Ads new دانشگاه der Zmini Messaht by 7 m and embark upon a thousand thousand Mtermrbai Amozci 11, the Falit Music Adamh Electronics. Tawanmendihai Amozci and پژوهشي: دانشگاه Imam Reza (p) directed by Rowe Falithei Rushd Gifts der 3 Amozci estate, and Andria پژوهشي Falit Dard. The possession Der Amozci where دانشگاه der bribed Karshenasi 9, 3 der template Daneshkdh technical engineers, and Mdirit Hsabdari and human sciences and Ba بهرهگيري Web Web Asated a group of 139 tested Falit Dard. Reshethaai Yad interesting Ke smuggled Iike مديرگروه Darai, created Links Scientific and Karshenas full time Mbahand Abartend Web: 1 caress and physical science and 2 Winner 3 Ktabdari Hsabdari 4 Zaban Persian translators 5 engineers كامپيوتر Nrmafsar 6 engineers كامپيوتر Skhtafsar 7 Mdirit Snotai 8 Mdirit بازرگاني 9 near Electronic Engineers modify hands گفت Ke Vargaltheselan دانشگاه Imam Reza (p) 1378 Web Sal Taknon 528 Ke, a group of 66 Mbahand Web as a group of characters Karshenasi Arshad Reshethaai various saw پيدا Cardhand. Ali-how are دانشگاه Darai 1541 where a group deemed Daneshjo Ke Web where a group of 795 census پسر Dichter, a group of 746 Hustnd. Ba, where a Tawanmendihai Amozci Ke der دانشگاه Imam Reza (p) exists, where its founder Girantvai, Messier moved der expansion and Steb Bkhchidn Rushd was motivated by his Music print head resolution Daddah Last priority and perspective by Hemin der Ende Theseli Sall, Ra Bernamhhaie Der to expand the estate were planted Amozci der Dard. Rasta by Hemin der Doktor گفته live نوروزبيگي, President دانشگاه Imam Reza (p), where I come دانشگاه Web Sal Se bribed پزشكي engineers, architects near Ba گرايش Mdirit intelligence and financial support Ra d photographed and visited Sciences, the Reshethaai Theseli Music and Kurd Ali added Azsal after a supplementary passages der 4 Ktabdari Manhattan, Zaban Persian translators, and engineers Hsabdari كامپيوتر Rohandazi Khoahid strain. Cheyenne said Ke Last Amaaont Amozci and پژوهشي where my choice دانشگاه der Music Darai Zirmjmuahhaie Last Ke der sustainable, it Khoahid Acharhai the strain: 1 Mdirit Amozci Daneshgueye 2 and 3 Mdirit پژوهشي CHOREY Amozci 4 CHOREY پژوهشي 5 CHOREY Anformatik 6 software and a book 7 book Nzart and Arziabi Asated directors گروههاي Amozci 8 (9 der Manhattan) 9 Kamicin Brrsi special resources

I hope it's enough for you to evaluate it. Alexius08 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translator doesn't translate Farsi. Did you tell it to treat the text as Arabic? That would explain the gibberish. (The Arabic for "the", which is pervasive in any Arabic text, is absent; there are at least two letters, gaaf and che, in the text that aren't part of the Arabic alphabet.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 October 2008 UTC
  • Transwiki Unless there's a policy or guideline to the contrary, I think the Farsi Wikipedia is in better position to evaluate this than we are. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Cbdorsett (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daily.co.uk[edit]

Daily.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No external sources about subject - the one external reference is about the founders' old company. Due to the lack of external sources, it fails Notability for a company. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaka Mwambi[edit]

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

lacking notability (WP:DIPLOMAT) Colchicum (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously the nominator did not do any verification checking. Mwambi is a former Deputy Secretary General of the ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi party in Tanzania, and is a former regional commissioner of the Tanga Region and Rukwa Regions (equivalent to Premier, Governor, etc in other countries). So whilst notability as a diplomat is not fully there, as a Tanzanian politician he is more than notable. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, as required per the primary notability criterion and WP:POLITICIAN? At least any reliable third-party sources? Is it the same Jaka Mwambi or just another person bearing the same name? Colchicum (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN is a proof of achievement secondary criterion. Sources found in a Google News search[1] appear to verify enough to meet that standard.([2] [3] [4]) As for this possibly being some other Jaka Mwambi, ambassadors to Moscow don't come out of thin air. Unreliable sources found online say he rose through the party ranks to a nationally significant post. I don't see reasonable doubt here. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed the same person. If you compare the photo on the article, to this photo, one can see they are one in the same. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian property bubble[edit]

Russian property bubble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is not sourced to reliable sources, the only source is a blog. As the "article" states "It is unclear whether the rise in prices represents a bubble condition", so there is likely also to be original research and a problem with WP:SYN. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is meant by WP:SYN. An increase in real estate prices does not mean that there is a 'bubble'. Property prices can naturally fluctuate up and down, with no 'bubble' properties, and there is no verifiable information on the article, it's basically a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYN. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it bursts (it will burst of course, I agree) it will be part of a bigger picture to be described in another article, as of now the article is useless. Colchicum (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. As it stands, this is article about real estate in Russia.Biophys (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a localized problem base on people wanting to live in those cities; no sources for any claims made in article and unlikely to find them. Carol Moore 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
  • Since the contents were moved to Real estate in Russia, this discussion can be speedy closed, "bubble" replaced with a redirect. NVO (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it the redirect easily could be deleted and the article resurrected. And I think there are people pushing a POV of worldwide property bubble in several articles on specific countries, with no WP:RS. So I think the best thing is transfer any sourced info, of which I don't think there was much if any, an delete it. Carol Moore 13:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
      • The article has not yet been deleted to talk about resurrection. Colchicum (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "bubble" article as unsourced OR. (redirect was already reverted, so deletion is needed). Renamed version doesn't have the OR problem i think, but still needs sources - tag for improvement or weak delete.Yobmod (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal bubble. ha. CompuHacker (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The sources added since the beginning of the AfD provide some basis for a claim of notability, and the Google book results listed in this discussion have been added to the talk page for possible expansion later. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon Row[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the theory of "six degrees of separation", if everything next to something notable or mentioned in an article about something notable is considered inherently notable as a result, then everything would be notable. Then nothing would be. The argument that (something else) is an article and isn't notable is irrelevant, because if they aren't, then they're subject to deletion as well.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike articles on shopping malls... as a collection of stores is a colection of stores is a collection of stores... and only have merit to the vendors selling their goods and the customers buying them. If someone cares to use these searches [5][6][7] to establish some kind of notability...? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Looking at the web page, there is nothing notable about it . Largest store seems to be Bed Bath and Beyond. . If the ice skating rink is notable, which I see no evidence of, then there conceivably could be an article about it. DGG (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small mixed-use property, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten Pound Hammer do you mean that there are no sources in the article or that there are no sources available? Because there are sources available. [1], [2], [3]. These Washington Post articles make it sound like a particularly notable development at least regionally.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Keep by the way.--Samuel J. Howard(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep there are a number of references to Pentagon Row in books in architecture. The software breaks a link, but do a google books search for "pentagon row". Indeed, with the multiple book references and the Washington Post articles, the development meets the "being covered by multiple, independent reliable sources" for buildings, structures, and landmarks--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about local facilities in local papers are a matter of course; they don't establish notability for purposes of this international encyclopedia. Otherwise every independent coffee shop, corner bakery, scout troop, Lions Club chapter, and neighborhood branch library would be notable. I'd at least AfD an article on Murky Coffee, Randolph's bakery, or the Shirlington branch of the Arlington Library.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about local facilities in local papers do establish that there are sources, contra TenPoundHammer--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can certainly verify the assertions in an article, but see below re notability.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot exclude any WP:RS simply based upon its physical location. If we did then every country Article would lose half of their references, because they are located within the mentioned country. A RS is always a RS, no matter where, or how old, it may be. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. Countries are considered notable as a matter of fact, it seems to me; besides that, there isn't a single country in the world that hasn't been written up in newspapers, travel books, political and economic documents, etc., outside of the respective countries in quantities way beyond what's necessary to establish notability in that manner. Now, back to you: are you going to tell me that if the Sticktown local paper writes up the goings-on in Sticktown Girl Scout Troop 576 every week ("Last week the girls got a tour of the recycling center"), then Sticktown Girl Scout Troop 576 has achieved the kind of notability that makes it an obvious topic of interest in an international encyclopedia?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are refering to is the non-existant Local clause in WP:N Which some believe it to say "If the Reliable Source is to close in proximity to the Article's Subject, reject it". Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A policy-based follow-up so that this isn't just me making an argument: See the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at the wrong standard. These are not organizations or companies, they're buildings, structures, and landmarks. The rough standard is "being covered by multiple, independent reliable sources."--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that perspective, but to me a mall is where I go to engage in commerce, not where I go to admire the architecture. Note that this all came about because Old Guard was filling in missing articles from a template grouping Washington-area shopping malls. To me, that's a commercial classification, not an architectural one. Also, note that the buildings article doesn't mention malls, but mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those two cases refer to articles about chains, which are abstract concepts and not physical buildings, thus making the WP:CORP standard appropriate. An article about McDonald's is about the chain, not the building. Similarly, an article about the developers or property managers of Pentagon Row or about one of the chain stores there would properly be judged by WP:CORP, but the structure itself is a structure. If you look at the references in Google Books, it's cited as an example of this sort of project.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - scrapes past WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Agree that a mall is a business, and needs non-local sources to show notability. Every town has a building that residents love/hate that gets into the local paper, it does not make it architechturally notable.Yobmod (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are non-local sources.
      • Professional Real Estate Development, 2nd ed., by Anne B. Frej and Richard B. Peiser, pg. 352 [8]
      • The American City: What Works, what Doesn't by Alexander Garvin, Pg 353[9]
      • Shopping Environments: Evolution, Planning and Design by pg. 61[10] and 189[11]
      • Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets, and Urban Villages by Charles C. Bohl, Dean Schwanke. (several different pages) [12]
      • Urban Land, Vol 62, pg. 104.
      • Transit-oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, And Prospects, pg. 106 [13]
      • New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report & Best Practices Guide By Robert Steuteville, Philip Langdon (5 page references) [14]
      • A reference in New Urban News[15]
      • Worthy of the Nation: Washington, DC, from L'Enfant to the National Capital Planning Commission, by United States National Capital Planning Commission, Frederick Albert Gutheim, Laura Bush, Antoinette J. Lee, pg. 382[16]
      • Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice by Jill Grant, pg. 92 [17]
      • Transforming Suburban Business Districts by A. Geoffrey Booth, Urban Land Institute, pg. 113 [18]
    • I've left out the tourist guidebook references that will be able to be used to add more verifiable information to the article, but which aren't as persuasive for notability. (There's also a couple of fiction references.) Also, I'd point out that a structure being "architecturally notable" is not the standard for notability on Wikipedia.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that of the malls I AfDed the other day, this one has plenty of indications of notability—on account of characteristics that aren't mentioned at all in the article. If the same were true of an article written about a person or a company (say, someone wrote an article about Sarah Palin saying nothing more than that she's a hockey mom from Wasilla, Alaska, who spends a lot of time in Juneau), the article would be subject to speedy deletion unless someone caught it in time and added an indication of what's notable about her (which, by the way, should be at least in the lead sentence per WP:Lead section). So right now the article looks like an article that should be deleted.—Largo Plazo (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fashion Centre at Pentagon City. I've been there, and I don't think it's very notable. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a completely separate mall. There's no reason why the Fashion Centre article would mention anything about it other than its adjacency.—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Closed after speedy delete at request of sole author. Bduke (Discussion) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal force (planar motion)[edit]

Brews_ohare (originator, sole contributor and defender of this page) wishes to withdraw this article from further discussion and have it deleted entirely ASAP. Brews ohare (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal force (planar motion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is scoped, defined and edited to be purely and simply a Content fork of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). It consists of material that was deleted from that original article. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD requires an expert in the subject. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to deletion; this article is not a content fork; see the discussion below and look at the article itself. There is very little overlap, neither in topics, nor figures, nor equations. Brews ohare (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, since you wrote it, you would be opposed. The reason there's no overlap is because the material was removed from the original article, by consensus. There may be ways to keep material within the wikipedia, but a simple content fork which overlaps in scope with the original article isn't one of them.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of the term Centrifugal force is synonymous with the main article. Under the wikipedia policies articles that are on synonymous usages should be merged see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Here, because the material was removed from the original article, you can't do that. So the article should be deleted or made not to be a content fork.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is cited based upon the notion that the the two articles refer to the same concept (centrifugal force) and therefore must be in the same article. However, the two pages are not discussing the same thing: they discuss different aspects of the topic, namely, centrifugal force in the context of a uniformly rotating reference frame with a fixed axis on one page, and centrifugal force in a more general context on another page. It is not similar to the example case given in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary of discussing gasoline on one page and petrol on another. For more detail on the reasoning behind two pages, see this link. Brews ohare (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content of the article Centrifugal force (planar motion) is in no way a duplication of the companion articles on this subject. It concerns the details of describing centrifugal effects upon particle motions as observed from a variety of inertial and non-inertial frames of reference, and using a variety of coordinate systems (arc-length, polar, Cartesian, curvilinear). It also provides guidance to a good deal of cited work.

In contrast, the companion article Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) deals very specifically with centrifugal force as observed in reference frame rotating around a fixed axis. That's it.

To simply delete Centrifugal force (planar motion) would eliminate a good deal of useful material from Wikipedia not available elsewhere. To combine it with Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) would make that article much longer, and make it cover a wider range of topics.

In addition, Centrifugal force (planar motion) addresses the Lagrangian formulation of the problem (which applies to very general coordinate systems) and points out that "generalized" fictitious forces differ from plain old Newtonian fictitious forces, a point that has caused some debate on talk pages.

I am inclined to think Wolfkeeper does not grasp the issues here. Brews ohare (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about fictitious forces acting in a rotating reference frame. This is synonymous with that covered at the original article Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). Under the policy WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary synonymous definitions are merged into a single article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty clear from the article and from what was said above that the article Centrifugal force (planar motion) is not about fictitious forces in a rotating reference frame. It is about observation of a moving particle in planar motion. It can be viewed from a variety of frames. In contrast, the examples in Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) describe motion as seen strictly from a rotating frame, and, moreover, that article is devoted to objects in uniform circular motion, not in general planar motion. Brews ohare (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that we are reading the same article that is up for deletion. The lead says, and I quote: The centrifugal forces considered here arise when observing a moving particle from several different non-inertial frames. So, unless your centrifugal force that the article is supposed to be about is to do with a non-inertial frame that doesn't rotate(!!!!), then that's exactly opposite to what the article itself claims. Therefore, I simply cannot reconcile your comments with what the article's lead itself claims.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper: The article lead says "This article describes the centrifugal force that acts upon objects in planar motion when observed from non-inertial reference frames."
I believe you have adopted a very narrow meaning for "planar motion" and for "non-inertial frames" that is far more restricted than these terms imply, and also far narrower than the subject of the article. If you find this lead is unclear, the debate should be over modifying the lead, not over deleting the article because you have misconstrued its subject. Your remarks seems to imply that you think all non-inertial frames are rotating. Yes, the article discusses (in part) a non-inertial frame that doesn't rotate (!!!!) Please don't get rhetorical here. This is a serious matter. Brews ohare (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I simply believe you've done a content fork, and you're trying not to get it removed. The scope of the article as defined in the lead overlaps almost completely with centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and the article body mostly contains the fraction of the material that was removed from there.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale can be found at this link. Brews ohare (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The less articles on centrifugal force the better. There are some issues to be discussed regarding what Brews has said. There is the issue of the fact that there are situations in which a centrifugal force is claimed to exist from the perspective of a rotating frame of reference, yet where no such centrifugal force exists from the perspective of polar coordinates in the inertial frame. Agreement may never be reached on whether such a centrifugal force does actually exist or not in the rotating frame in that scenario. But the issue should be discussed on the talk page of a unified article. There will probably be fringe sources supporting both points of view, and a consensus may be reached to avoid the controversy altogether since the mainstream textbooks tend to be silent on that issue. The overall aim should be to have one drastically simplified article with distinct sections, and to minimize, but not necessarily eliminate the mention of Coriolis force and Euler force. David Tombe (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some dispute, and it would be great to resolve it. I don't think the best approach to resolution is to delete pages that are inconvenient for some participants in the discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because creating fake distinctions among topics is much better idea.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMHO the centrifugal force article(s) on Wikipedia have grown excessively due to long-standing disputes and maybe a bit of original research. Perhaps a better solution would be to write a wikibook on centrifugal force and try to write one concise encyclopedic article for Wikipedia. --Itub (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to identify the key areas of conflict. I can point to at least three of these,
(1) The issue of whether the fictitious forces as derived for the purposes of rotating frames have restrictions on their applicability. I have suggested that the terms only apply to situations in which the objects in question possess the same actual rotation as the rotating frame itself. In other words, any actual effect arises from actual rotation.
(2) There is the issue concerning the fact that centrifugal force becomes inertia when we use Cartesian coordinates. I have been advocating that polar cordinates are the only realistic way of describing the centrifugal force effect.
(3) There is the issue of what has been described in these articles as 'reactive centrifugal force'. It is a knock on effect, just as weight is to gravity. Some have argued that since reactive centrifugal force doesn't act on the same object as centrifugal force, then they must be something completely different, deserving of two separate pages. I would say that the so-called reactive centrifugal force would show up implicitly in any coherent and well written article on centrifugal force without the need to even bring attention to the concept in its own right.
The aim should be for a united article, and all discussions towards that end should be on the talk page of centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference) since that is the page from which all the forks emerged, and since that is the page that google hits direct us to.David Tombe (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David: You raise some interesting points that require attention, but all that matters for this particular debate is this very specific question: "Is Centrifugal force (planar motion) a content fork of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)?" There is, in fact, no basis for considering it a content fork. For example,

1. The above link to Wiki definition of forking says: it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

There can be little doubt that the level of discussion is more mathematical and more detailed on Centrifugal force (planar motion) than on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame).

2 .The above link to Wiki definitions says: Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork.

There may be some overlap between the articles, but the amount of overlap is way below "significant". For example, Centrifugal force (planar motion) deals with the non-inertial frame attached to the moving particle and with the co-rotating frame. Each of these examples brings out a very important aspect of centrifugal force for planar motion not addressed in the other article. Another example, Centrifugal force (planar motion) discusses a variety of coordinate systems, including the arc-length and curvilinear coordinate systems. The other article does not. Centrifugal force (planar motion) contains Figures not in the other article, illustrating points not raised in the other article.

In short, this motion to delete on the basis of Centrifugal force (planar motion) being a content fork of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) is groundless. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was only created after material was removed from the primary article, and largely consists of material that was removed by consensus from there. That's a content fork. Content forks are highly undesirable in the wikipedia, and I strongly encourage everyone to vote for the removal.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article is an excellent supplement to the existing articles on classical mechanics. We should all be grateful to Brews Ohare for willing to spend so much time and effort here to write physics articles.

I don't understand why the "content forking" issue is seen as a problem. Content forking is only a problem if someone's edits are deleted because the edits are wrong, not if they are too technical for the article. In this case, you don't want to write in an introductory article about centrifugal force about the Lagrangian approach, certainly not about the formalism of differential geometry.

However, the Lagrangian formalism is the standard formalism to solve problems in classical mechanics. No one I know actually uses the cumbersome formalism presented in the wiki article about fictitious force for anything but the simplest cases, except perhaps if you are a first year physics student doing his homework.

Wikipedia should be a place where an interested high school student should be able to read an article about fictitious force at his/her level, and it should be a place where a physics student can read an article that explains how one can write down the equations of motion for a particle moving in a rubber tube that is moving and deforming in some arbitrary way. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, you agree that this is a content fork. You also seem to say that a high school student should be able to read the article, but I wasn't aware that Lagrangians were really high school level material.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are that the article was only created when material was removed from the centrifugal force and follows none of the norms for content forks that are outlined at WP:Content forking#What content/POV forking is not, and is not on any well-defined encyclopedic topic, and the introduction reads like a content fork when you compare it with the original article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I'm saying is that wikipedia should have articles at different levels suitable for people ranging from complete lay persons to profdessional physicists. Should we delete an article useful to students just because there exists an article on the same topic, but which is written for kindergarten level students? Count Iblis (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not supposed to invent terms just to keep professional physicists happy, no. This is an encyclopedia which is primarily intended for a general audience, not a highly specialised one. If there are aspects of the topic that are especially complex they need to go in subarticles or be referred out to a full treatment where that's more appropriate, not by creating content forks and pretending that they're new topics entirely.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, keeping a professional physicist happy is tougher than inventing terms. :-) You appear to be recommending creation of a broad summary page referring out to several branch articles. That would supplement the existing disambiguation page, and be linked by it, right? Brews ohare (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key question – I haven't studied the citation or this discussion yet enough to know if it has been addressed, but I think the key question is whether the distinction between these two articles is a distinction that can be found in a reliable source. Can someone point out a source that makes such a distinction, as opposed to just different sources that adopt diffferent approaches to centrifugal force? Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really doubt that there's anything like that out there that says that there's distinct sorts of centrifugal force 'planar' and 'non planar'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a key question. Wiki guidelines say: Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Maybe some such summary style article is needed? Brews ohare (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but this isn't. It's simply a content fork.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brews, I'm inviting you to answer it. Since it's your fork, please tell us what source this kind of fork comes from. If there's no source for splitting the treatment of centrifugal force this way, then I don't see why we should do it. The issue of doing a summary and subarticles seems completely independent – an alternative proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: Well, as explained elsewhere in this discussion, there is no claim that there are "distinct sorts" of centrifugal force, "planar" or otherwise. The idea is simply that the topic is broad and a division of topics seems to make for a more useful discussion. The division is helpful in separating simple examples from the more complex.
It places a number of popular and simple examples on the page Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). These examples employ constant angular rotation about a fixed axis of rotation. Probably this page will be accessible to most readers and will be sufficient for their purposes.
However, a great many topics are not covered. Some of these are now on Centrifugal force (planar motion), and are discussed, not in the context of uniform rotation about a fixed axis, but in the context of a particle moving in an arbitrary path on a plane with arbitrary time-dependence. These examples are not a re-hash of what was said on the other page, and present some significant new results and approaches.
Centrifugal force (planar motion) is more demanding of the reader, and probably not everyone will look at it. So its separation from Centrifugal force (planar motion) is based largely upon expectation of a different audience.
For a broad subject, a division of some kind seems useful. I do not think this particular division is followed by any particular textbook, but then they have a thousand pages to do stuff, and their division is affected by that fact. They also expect a committed readership (students, maybe), and not browsers with varying degrees of interest and background.
In any event, Centrifugal force (planar motion) certainly is not a content fork, and covers different material intended for a different audience with a different background. As said at the link just cited: It is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. and: Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. However successfully this pair of pages covers the subject, deleting one of them is not going to improve matters. Brews ohare (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insertion of response from Dicklyon added at bottom of page that seems pertinent here: Brews ohare (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the other article is already 68 KB, I agree that some kind of division is needed. And a division based on this more general and more complex approach makes some sense. And there's some interesting content here. So the discussion really ought to be more general, about organization and naming; deletion doesn't seem like a logical way to address the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now you're even content forking other people's comments!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the points. This article doesn't address a balanced view of the subject matter, it artificially restricts itself to a subset of the material that 'just happens' to match the material deleted from the main article. It's like an article Brown horse (white feet). In some cases, where a brown horse with white feet might have some genetic trait that make the topic notable it might be fair enough to create an article on a restricted topic. There's nothing like that here. The "(planar motion)" sic works just the same as any other centrifugal force in a coordinate system.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the article treats a "subset of the material"; how could a finite length article do otherwise? That length restriction is not evidence for a lack of balance, per se. Lack of balance suggests one view of something is unfairly emphasized. If you believe that, provide support. Mere assertion is insufficient.
The rationale provided at this link explains why the article has been separated from Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). Instead of inventing straw men, address the issues. Brews ohare (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep My own comment above was this rather involved article would require the attention of an expert in the field, as I am unable to read/understand the article and make a determination as to whether the content is accurate or not. But that flaw is my own and not the article's, as I am not an advanced mathematician. But I did not know that Wiki was designed with the goal of being understood by high school students. I would think that like any encyclodia, if a subject being covered requires the language and explanations of that subject matter, as long as it is accurate and sourced it may be included. Again, this requires the attention of experts in that field... and hopefully such experts will come forward and qualify theeir expertise when making an educated comments. If the author states that it is not a content fork, I will assume good faith that it is not so. That it contains informations removed from a seperate article, should not defacto make it a fork, as the language of mechanical physics is universal to the subject. As for "content forking", I am of the opinion if a parent article was so lengthy and in-depth that informations were removed in the interest of simplicity/clarity/length, it would make sense to then have a second article that covered the removed informations if they were important enough to merit aa seperate article. Not using any specific WP:WAX, there are satelite articles for other subjects that cover aspects of their parent articles. This may well be the same. But again, I do not have the technical expertise to know one way or the other. My keep is "provsional" as I watch this AfD. The article does not look or feel like a hoax. It is well sourced. In the field of mechanical or astrometric physics it may be a notable as Tom Crise's latest film. Perspective gentlemen... perspective. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's not advertising or describing itself as a satellite of the main article, it's saying that it's a different sort of centrifugal force. But it self evidently is not that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Then as an independent article, that should be fixed and the article remain. Cleanup is never a valid reason for deletion. Was this discussed in the article's talk page? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, because it's a content fork, it's not an independent article, neither in scope, nor material. And yes, the removal of this sort of material was discussed in Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection might be met by rewriting the intro. The article Centrifugal force (planar motion) is not intended to indicate it deals with a fundamentally different kind of centrifugal force; its intention is to deal with the determination of the centrifugal force for the case of general planar motion as seen from a variety of non-inertial frames. Maybe an analogy is finding the bandwidth in two different amplifier designs: bandwidth is still bandwidth, but its dependence on the circuit variables is different. For example, in a frame attached to the particle, centrifugal force is related to the center of curvature of the path; in a co-rotating frame it is related to the distance of the particle from the origin of the frame. Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Exactly. A rewrite addresses this concern. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, if it's only a rewrite of all this consensus-deleted material and the introduction that's all right then.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and the article title. Hint: I'm being ironic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't actually find any connection between the lead and the body, they actually talk about different things. The body is just material removed from the main article, and the lead is just the original lead with a few words changed here and there to make the content fork less obvious. Apparently a lot of people are being taken in by this ruse.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the lead can be nodified to nore coherently (in your opinion) flow into the body. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, articles are supposed to be on a topic. There's no overarching topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is not the issue; the content of the article is the issue, and it is not a content fork according to the directly quoted excerpts from content fork. Brews ohare (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then if its not a fork, what's the deal? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deal is that most of this material was previously in another article. But Oh dear, it got deleted, but that's OK, we can always OR up a completely non standard topic, add it to the disambiguation page, and add that to the wikipedia, right?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the topics discussed on Centrifugal force (planar motion) are standard topics and are cited extensively. They are grouped together here as they apply to a particular subject, namely general planar motion of a particle. Brews ohare (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary encyclopedia articles are on a (singular) topic, not all the topics; A topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at this link, the topic for one page is centrifugal force in the context of a uniformly rotating reference frame with fixed axis, and the topic for the second page is centrifugal force in the context of general planar motion of a particle as seen from various reference frames and employing various coordinate systems. In no way does this division contradict any guidelines in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Brews ohare (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B******s.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems to me like Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) is about the centrifugal force that comes about in a uniformly rotating reference frame, and Centrifugal force (planar motion) is about the centrifugal force in reference frames in general motion. The second is more general, the first is simpler and more often used. Sure, I think there's room for improvement in explaining the scope and divvying up the content of both articles, but I don't think deletion is called for. --Steve (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for this theory, the original article covers non uniformly rotating reference frames as well, and does it in 3-space, whereas this one only covers the bits that were removed, and only then in 2D.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No material has been created that deals with particle motion on 3-D space curves; of course, it could be done, but involves some additional vectors and concepts from differential geometry. I doubt that added complexity would affect your point of view positively. 2-D planar motion is a half-way house.
The maths in the original article deals with all 3-D space curves as you well know, including the subset that are 2-D.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could provide a link to the old material you refer to. I am saying no material for 3D motion analogous to the arc-length description here has been developed. Brews ohare (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper, I'm confused, are you saying that Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) has a discussion of non uniformly rotating reference frames? If so, I don't see it.... Thanks, --Steve (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no special equation or behaviour for centrifugal force for non uniformly rotating reference frames. The article doesn't limit itself to uniformly rotating reference frames in any way.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean to say that Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) "doesn't limit itself to uniformly rotating reference frames in any way." Having written all the examples and provided all the figures for these examples with the exception of potential energy, I am confident that they deal with uniform rotation. Brews ohare (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm mostly with Wolfkeeper here; someone should add couple sentences to Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) to take care of general reference frame motion, but that would be sufficient, and then Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) would be 100% general. I change my vote to Keep but reorganize and/or re-title. There's two articles' worth of content, none of it is really worth throwing out, but there isn't yet a good philosophy guiding what goes where. Perhaps Centrifugal force (planar motion) could be re-titled along the lines of "Centrifugal force details in various coordinate systems". It would be thought of as a spin-out article. --Steve (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have broached this option several times and in several ways. The extension of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) to rotation about a fixed axis but at variable angular rate is simple unless an example of some interest is needed. (Got any suggestions?) It just adds the Euler force. However, that slight generalization would not bring the topics in Centrifugal force (planar motion) within its purview. So two pages still seems most practical. Do you have something else in mind? Brews ohare (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, even the 2-D planar motion examples agree with Steve's description of the article Centrifugal force (planar motion) as more general, though less often used than Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). Again, not a content fork. Brews ohare (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We first have to decide if the two centrifugal forces are the same or not. If they are the same, then there should only be one article. If they can be shown to be different, then that might make a case for having two articles. However, if there is an endless dispute about whether or not they are the same or different, it means that the two are sufficiently associated together to be presented in different sections of the same article. The claim for them being different is that in 'rotating frames' there is a school of thought that the centrifugal force applies to every object irrespective of its relative motion, whereas it is only in the case of co-rotation that this centrifugal force coincides with the outward force of planetary orbits. It is this latter effect which is the centrifugal force as is understood by the man in the street. Quality university textbooks such as Goldstein's are silent on the issue of whether or not centrifugal force in rotating frames applies to objects that are not co-rotating. But all the worked examples assume co-rotation. Any examples that involve the Earth's rotation will always assume co-rotation. There are however websites and scientific journal articles which specifically focus on the idea that centrifugal force acts on objects at rest in the inertial frame as observed from a rotating frame. There are also scientific journals which claim the opposite and state that centrifugal force is something which applies to objects that are at rest in a rotating frame of reference. In order to resolve this dispute, I would draw attention to centrifugal potential energy. It only occurs when absolute rotation occurs. The counter argument is that centrifugal force as observed on an object at rest in the inertial frame is overridden by a radially inward Coriolis force. But we would then need to have a Coriolis potential energy in order to cancel out the centrifugal potential energy. And the Coriolis potential energy would have to be a tension. No such thing exists. That is the argument that needs to be resolved as a priority. I say DON'T KEEP because I believe that there is only one universal centrifugal force. It is the outward force associated with absolute rotation. David Tombe (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from various side-issues, your argument is simply "If the topics are the same, then one page should suffice." However, completely putting to one side for the moment whether this premise is valid, the conclusion is not valid. Quoting content forking it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.
In addition to false conclusion, the premise is false. One page treats a limited subset of examples, the other a more general set. Brews ohare (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the other article is already 68 KB, I agree that some kind of division is needed. And a division based on this more general and more complex approach makes some sense. And there's some interest content here. So the discussion really ought to be more general, about organization and naming; deletion doesn't seem like a logical way to address the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I am concerned, this content fork does not constitute an article. In that sense it must be deleted. I don't mind if the material finds somewhere more appropriate, but this 'article' is a charade.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disturbed that you believe pronouncements supported only by your say-so are a contribution to the discussion. It would be more appropriate to engage with the alternatives to deletion suggested on this page, please. Brews ohare (talk)
So you're claiming to be disturbed that an Article For Delete discussion consists of people arguing for and against deletion???-(User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope; just disturbed by the quality of argument. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, The problem about the 68KB could easily be remedied by drastically simplifying the article. There is not that much to centrifugal force. It is the outward force associated with rotation. All we need is a few examples such as the centrifuge, artificial gravity and planetary orbits. The existing section on centrifugal potential energy, which is the most interesting section in the whole article, should of course be retained. It's a pity that the lesson inherent in that section has been to no avail so far.

There is no end of stuff that could be removed from all the existing articles. I have never before seen descriptions of simple circular motion situations that involve the Coriolis force. I don't know what you mean about the more complex approach. The existing articles don't even touch on complex scenarios such as elliptical orbits. Any semblance of complexity merely reflects an ever proliferating confusion about something that is relatively simple. David Tombe (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David: All that matters for this particular debate is this very specific question: "Is Centrifugal force (planar motion) a content fork of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)?" Your remarks do not address this issue. Brews ohare (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brews, The question is whether or not I think that the centrifugal force (planar motion) article should be deleted. I think it should. There are no restrictions on what my reasons are allowed to be. The participants should be asking themselves which of the below categories do they perceive themselves to belong to,

(A) Centrifugal force is a purely fictitious force that is only ever observed from rotating frames of reference, and that it acts on all objects in the rotating frame, irrespective of their relative motion in that frame.

(B) Centrifugal force is a real effect which is induced by actual rotation, but that the term only applies when we are using polar coordinates. When we are using Cartesian coordinates, we must then talk in terms of Newton's law of inertia. It follows therefore that centrifugal force is only a fictitious force.

(C) Centrifugal force is an effect which is observed from a rotating frame of reference. In cases in which the object in question is co-rotating then it is a real effect. In cases of partial co-rotation it is a fictitious effect to the extent that it is not rotating, and a real effect to the extent of its own actual rotation.

(D) Centrifugal force is a real outward radial effect which occurs when actual rotation occurs.

(E) None of the above.

I fall into category (D). My guess is that the rest of you will be split between (A) and (B) but that many of you will claim to fit into (E).

And to those who disgagree with (D), then take a look at the section on centrifugal potential energy. It begins with an explanation as per (A). But it finishes with a very real hydrostatic pressure for cases of co-rotation. For zero rotation in the inertial frame, there is zero centrifugal potential energy. David Tombe (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David: You are mistaken in thinking that the subject is deletion of the page Centrifugal force (planar motion). It is a narrower question, that suggests the grounds for deletion is that this page is a content fork. So I choose to defend on the narrower ground that Centrifugal force (planar motion) is not a content fork. If the whole subject comes up again with new grounds, I'll cross that bridge later. Brews ohare (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm usually more of a deletionist, but the reasons given here for deletion don't seem to address the real issue, which is how best to organize the treatment of centrifugal force. Wishful thinking like that of David Tombe, who believes that centrifugal force would be simple if we treated it as a real force, instead of the way the physics texts do, is not helpful to the discussion. Wolfkeeper has a point about content forking, but hasn't proposed a good way to re-integrate the material. I recommend he take this discussion back to a merge/split/rename/reorg proposal on the article talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me to defend the material. Under the wiki rules, the person that added it has to do that. He's completely failed so far, this is a fake article topic written to look like a unique definition of the term, created entirely due to the content forking caused by the material that was removed elsewhere. I also would point out that an AFD is not about the material, it's more about the article topic. Unless you're arguing that the article topic is suddenly going to go or already is legitimate, you can't legitimately argue a keep. I'm not arguing against the material. If Brews takes it and puts it somewhere sensible, that's fine. But that's not my problem. People creating fake article topics make me, and everyone else here look bad, as does a vote to keep. Please change your vote.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wild response does not address the reasons for the article laid out at this link, simply a rant. Brews ohare (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so far. As a theoretical physicist, I think this article has a right to exist. It contains more advanced math, which may be unsuitable for another article (Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)). The scope and even the title of this article, of course, should be discussed separately. However outright deletion does not seem to be the best solution at this moment. Ruslik (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just the problem. It doesn't have a right to exist. Why is it talking about centrifugal force in isolation to the other fictitious forces? Why is it here, and not in curvilinear coordinates and polar coordinates. It's only here because Brews Ohare content forked it here. It makes no sense here the lead definition of the topic doesn't cover the article, doesn't distinguish it from the original article it was forked off from, and there's much better places it should go anyway. It also breaks almost every major guideline and policy you can name, WP:NOR WP:VER WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:Notability I've probably missed some.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"There's much better places it should go anyway" "It also breaks almost every major guideline and policy you can name" … - uh-huh. Pile on the specifics. Brews ohare (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced that the article should be deleted. The names of both articles are bad in my opinion. It is better to have one article named Centrifugal force as a simple introduction, and the second Centrifugal force (advanced concepts). Or it may be better to have just one article called Inertial forces (advanced concepts), because it is difficult to separate various forces, if an arbitrary non-inertial frame is considered. However I am sure the deletion will not solve any these problems. Ruslik (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik, I'm not sure what 'advanced concepts' that you are talking about. All attempts to introduced concepts beyond simple circular motion have been stringently resisted. What we are witnessing here is the introduction of mathematical tools that are normally only used to deal with advanced concepts, but they are here being used to deal with either no concepts at all or with simple circular motion concepts. And they are being used wrongly, and hence totally confusing what is a relatively simple topic.

If someone wants to write a section on the treatment of centrifugal force using Lagrangian mechanics, I'd be fascinated to read it. But it should be a section lower down on a single unified article on centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The present objection to the article is based upon only the content fork objection, and this laundry list of policies is an attempt by Wolfkeeper to broaden the attack after its initiation. Here are the policies mentioned and how they apply to Centrifugal force (planar motion):
  1. WP:NOR - Wolfkeeper has not illustrated any instances of original research, and the article is supported by numerous citations and extended quotations from reputable sources.
  2. WP:VER - again, the article is very well sourced and verified
  3. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the article Centrifugal force (planar motion) and Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) are not an example of two pages discussing the same material (like gasoline and petrol), and therefore are not candidates for merger. Wolfkeeper implemented a Centrifugal force (disambiguation) page where the differences are spelled out. In particular, Centrifugal force (planar motion) applies to arbitrary planar motion of a particle as seen from various observational frames and using a variety of coordinate systems. Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) applies to the restricted case of rotation about a fixed axis. The split rationale is found at this link.
  4. WP:Notability - Centrifugal force (planar motion) contains a number of results not found on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), and which require some mathematical background not expected of the reader of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). Among these results on Centrifugal force (planar motion) are the connection between the Lagrangian formulation (for which a brief outline and numerous references and links to other articles are provided) and the Newtonian formulation in the co-rotating frame. This topic is discussed in Taylor, which is referenced. Another result is the development of the form of the centrifugal force in a non-inertial frame attached to a moving particle, and its connection to the radius of curvature of the particle's path. Both of these examples are outside the scope of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) as described on the Centrifugal force (disambiguation) page. Perusal of the page will show that there are many, many examples of formulations not found on the other page, and outside its scope. Brews ohare (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content fork at a bizarre title making a completely meaningless and arbitrary distinction. There is no reason for any such division of the topic; this is why no reliable sources treat it so. I have not checked what was or was not in Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) or the (I am quite sure) lengthy talk page discussions leading up to this, so it may be desirable to establish a temporary redirect or otherwise preserve the article history to make certain that anything useful (read: not trivial or redundant) is included. As a side note - where are all the tangent bundles? - Eldereft (cont.) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The assessment that the article is a "Content fork at a bizarre title making a completely meaningless and arbitrary distinction." does not address the reasons supporting this division outlined at length above. See here. The terms "bizarre" and "meaningless" are pejorative and inflammatory, not exactly following the "be polite" admonition for Wiki discussions. If there had been "lengthy talk page discussions leading up to this" it never would have happened. Instead Wolfkeeper unilaterally and unexpectedly posted this banner for deletion without discussion. There is nothing "trivial or redundant" in the article Centrifugal force (planar motion). As a side note, look at the article, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to moderator The following notifications by Brew Ohare may constitute WP:CANVAS (he could have simply tagged them):
  • Sbharris: [19]
  • Rogerbrent [20]
  • Dicklyon [21]
  • 'Steve' Sbyrnes [22]

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know how to tag them; what I did was simply to ask for an opinion, as you can determine by reading my request for opinion on their talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here a long while, I think it's reasonable for us to expect you to know and follow the rules. Merely notifying them is perfectly OK (and even then you're supposed to do it in an even handed way), telling them what you think is invalid.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to "expect" anything. Just look at it. Brews ohare (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper: Do you think special pleading for change in vote on user talk pages like yours at User_talk:Ruslik0#Centrifugal_force_.28planar_motion.29 is ethical? Brews ohare (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Maybe it might be just barely unethical. But there's a world of difference doing it after they've already voted, rather than dropping a leading question on their talk page to tell them about it in the first place. People are very much less likely to change their vote than starting off by giving them an initially stacked deck.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, it is unethical. In fact it is WP:CANVAS: Campaigning. But more than that it's impractical. I do not want to chase after the talk page of every editor that has commented here to see whether you've bad-mouthed me (not that you ever would do that) and presented a lopsided case to persuade a change in vote (nor would you even think of such a thing as that). And then what? Does every other edtior have to check every other editor to see what has been going on? You are simply undermining the entire process, turning it into a morass of interlinked arguments on multiple pages.
However, you can go underground and get the editor's e-mail addresses to do the same thing. You've already contacted me directly this way. Brews ohare (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Eldereft describes the situation very well. If we deleted all the forked articles and reverted "Centrifugal force" to one year ago, that'd be an improvement over the current situation, i.m.o. --PeR (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PeR: Your comments are unresponsive to the issues already raised in support of the article. See here. I do not see any reasoning leading to the conclusion that the topics discussed, documented, and illustrated on Centrifugal force (planar motion) are a backward step, and reversion to a situation without this material would be a forward step. You have advanced no support for your views and conclusions, and apparently have not looked at the article in any detail. Going through the article topic by topic there is no parallel article or material in Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). Brews ohare (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I've gone to quite a bit of effort to draw attention to centrifugal force as it arises in central force theory in the classical mechanics textbooks that I used. And here's you once again trying to push the idea that I hold some kind of unorthodox view of centrifugal force that is not to be found in the textbooks.

What about the section on centrifugal potential energy? Is centrifugal potential energy a real effect or not? Does it occur in buckets of water that are stationary if we view them from rotating reference frames? If you think that my position on centrifugal force is contrary to what's in the textbooks, then let's hear what your position is.

And regarding your view that the article for deletion is to cater for a higher level, I think you've got it all wrong. The article in question doesn't even tell us what centrifugal force is. There is alot of maths in it, some of which involves the polar coordinate tools that might be used for analyzing planetary orbital motion. But there is no actual application of these maths tools. There are no physical contexts presented for the purposes of applying the maths. Had there been a coherent demonstration of how polar coordinate expressions are used in the solving of complex planetary orbital situations, then I might have agreed with you that the article would be good for the purposes of catering to a higher level. But that is clearly not the case here. The article in question uses advanced methods wrongly.

Centrifugal force is the radially outward force that comes with rotation. If you think that it's more complicated than that, can you please give me an example of centrifugal force that is not catered for by that simple definition? David Tombe (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, but I find your comments generally to be too "elliptical". If you can give links to sources sometimes, like specific textbooks that support your statements, then maybe I could learn what's behind your viewpoint. Just saying "standard textbooks" is not that helpful to me, as I don't have a collection of mechanics texts, and I don't know what's standard. You can start by explaining, and sourcing, your statement "Centrifugal force is the radially outward force that comes with rotation". Force on what? The rotating object? Or something else? It sounds a lot like the reactive centrifugal force; is that what you mean? Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, in the past I've even given page numbers to Goldstein's classical mechanics. In an elliptical orbit, there is a centripetal force supplied by gravity and a centrifugal force acting outwards. The two are not in general equal in magnitude. However when we look at the simple case of circular motion, centripetal force and centrifugal force will always have the same magnitude. This is the source of the confusion because high school students then identify the centripetal force with the centrifugal force expression and assume that there only is centripetal force in play. Make it elliptical and you'll see both of the effects working in tandem. This confusion would not arise in a more advanced article. However, we don't have a more advanced article. We have an article which has the semblance of being advanced, but when it is all stripped down and analyzed it is shown to be simply noise about coordinate systems, with the odd simple circular motion example thrown in and totally confused. It tells us nothing about centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is a real force that causes hydrostatic pressure in buckets of water when the water is actually rotating. We don't need Lagrangian mechanics to explain that simple fact. David Tombe (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe we're both being too lazy; me too lazy to search all your earlier comments, and you too lazy to be specific. But on your detailed point here, how is it that is the forces are balanced, the planet doesn't just travel in a straight line at constant speed? As for the bucket of water, each particle moving in a circle needs a centripetal force to provide the acceleration; that force comes from gravitiy acting on the slope of the water; for the force to be acting outward on the water as you suggest, you need to be looking at it from the rotating frame, and the pseudoforce in that case is known as fictitious. If you have a book that treats it differently than that, can you provide a link, or title and page number? Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, In the circular motion scenario, both the centrifugal force and the centripetal force act in the radial direction. They are balanced. What you are doing is taking the centripetal force to be in the radial direction and then switching into cartesian coordinates for the centrifugal force and arguing that it doesn't exist. Either we treat the whole problem in cartesian coordinates or we treat the whole problem in polar coordinates. If you want to do it in cartesian coordinates, then centrifugal force as a term disappears, although the effect is still there and it is explained in terms of Newton's law of inertia.

Anyway, I didn't come back here again to go over that argument ad finitum. I'm trying to highlight exactly what everybody's position is on this. It is very naive to think that this dispute will be resolved by looking up a textbook. Everybody seems to believe that they are interpreting the textbooks correctly. I can only assume from what you say, that you fall into category A above. In other words, you believe unequivocally that centrifugal force is a purely fictitious effect which can only ever be observed from a rotating frame of reference.

Or maybe you are in category B? Here is the list again,

(A) Centrifugal force is a purely fictitious force that is only ever observed from rotating frames of reference, and that it acts on all objects in the rotating frame, irrespective of their relative motion in that frame.

(B) Centrifugal force is a real effect which is induced by actual rotation, but that the term only applies when we are using polar coordinates. When we are using Cartesian coordinates, we must then talk in terms of Newton's law of inertia and the centripetal force as being a force that causes the object to continually change direction. It follows therefore that centrifugal force is only a fictitious force.

(C) Centrifugal force is an effect which is observed from a rotating frame of reference. In cases in which the object in question is co-rotating then it is a real effect. In cases of partial co-rotation it is a fictitious effect to the extent that it is not rotating, and a real effect to the extent of its own actual rotation.

(D) Centrifugal force is a real outward radial effect which occurs when actual rotation occurs.

(E) None of the above.

Where do you see yourself on that list? If your answer is (E) could you please clarify your position on the matter.

If we can establish a consensus on the above categories, then we can discuss the problem within that viewpoint, and then we can decide if we need to fork the subject into many articles or not. David Tombe (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David: I think you are a bit ahead of things with your proposals about how to treat the material on the two pages. At the moment, Wolfkeeper has initiated this deletion review that can lead to complete removel of Centrifugal force (planar motion) along with its history and copies. I am unsure what happens to the Figures it uses. Of course, waste of everybodys' time could have been avoided were the whole matter discussed in advance of Wolfkeeper's drastic and unexpected action. Attempts made subsequent to his action, aimed at initiating such discussion on Wolfkeeper's talk page are met with his simple ultimatum: Move it or lose it.-
Your own vote is for deletion, so I'd guess removal of everything on the page is fine with you. Deletion makes any discussion of how to use or address its contents moot. Brews ohare (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brews, regarding the contents, you don't seem to grasp the fact that polar coordinates don't actually describe any particular motion. They merely give us mathematical expressions which can be matched up with actual forces in actual physical scenarios. We need to introduce those scenarios. And if you are going to limit those scenarios to simple cases of circular motion, then you don't need to use polar coordinates ot Lagrangian methods.

You need not patronize me. Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so on that basis, the content of the article in question is fundamentally wrong.

You have no basis for this statement, and this is not the forum for its discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now backing PeR's idea that we should return to the single article of a year ago. I was not happy with that article but at least it provided a single unified forum for the purposes of debating improvements. The situation has now degenerated into such a mess that we have no choice but to return to that point again and pick up the pieces. David Tombe (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the Article of One Year go, despite the fact that it is not satisfactory[edit]

I go along with PeR's suggestion. We should restore the single unified article on centrifugal force of one year ago and then discuss improvements on the talk page. The situation has now got totally out of hand with all the forks and all the confusion surrounding the application of polar coordinates. David Tombe (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David: your proposal is unclear. First, there was no page Centrifugal force (planar motion) at that time (it was formed in September 2008). Second, Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) is not under discussion in this forum. Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per author request[edit]

I deleted the article as per the request of its author Brews ohare (WP:CSD#G7).

If this was not a satisfactory resolution, I invite undeletion by any other admin and have no quarrel with it. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law and Inequality[edit]

Law and Inequality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing in the article indicates what makes this college law journal notable. No third party sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The journal is fairly widely held by academic libraries in the U.S., 216 libraries in the U.S. according to WorldCat search[23]. References provided in the article are sufficient to show that this is quite a respected academic law publication. Another example: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg citing an article from the journal in one of her opinions[24]. With WP articles about academic journals WP:N is a poor guide, since there is absolutely no tradition in academia of writing anything about such journals, but rather to publish research in them. There is, as it happens, a current discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals. So one just needs to apply common sense in such situations. If you like, this is a case for applying WP:IAR. Nsk92 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is indexed for impact factor at the WLU ranking of law journals[25]. Doing a search for the impact factor there gives this journal a ranking of 82 out of 928 journals ranked, with an impact factor of 0.95. Directly below it in the rankings are: "Michigan Journal of International Law", "Columbia Human Rights Law Review", "Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance". Nsk92 (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nsk92's findings. Top 10% of law journals seems notable enough, and two supreme court judges publishing in it and referring to it is also a high-level testimony to its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nsk92's detailed analysis. --Crusio (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while I created this article very early on in my career here (I'm much better at citing sources, etc, and have an FA to my name), I think a quick search by the nominator would've demonstrated its notability: Law & Inequality is a respected law review, as Nsk92 easily found out. In fact, anyone who's worked on a law review has probably run into it at one time or another (especially since its one of the foremost journals in its subject area). It sounds like the nominator needs to become better versed in law reviews and their role in legal thought, education and academia. As a side note, I only picked two of the four journals at the University of Minnesota Law School to create articles about, because of their significance. --Bobak (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Blauner[edit]

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

Previously twice deleted as Steve Blauner (some time ago), this incarnation is entirely unreferenced and written in an inapproriate style. It is difficult to know what, if anything, is the truth in this article: clearly "during Steve's time, he worked with everybody" is an exaggeration - but what else is? Unverified, unencyclopaedic, probably original research - Delete. Ros0709 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable music producer and industry figure. He's often interviewed, especially about Bobby Darin, and John Goodman played him in Darin's biopic, Beyond the Sea. Note that when looking for sources, Steve Blauner is by far the most common version of his name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article requiring cleanup and sourcing, certainly. Not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Problems with WP:RS can be overcome if someone takes the time to research and rewrite this article. Any takers? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The tone and style need improvement and it needs sources, but that's no reason to delete. He's clearly notable. Observe the Google book results Voceditenore (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that the author is James Scalia and the article on Jimmy Scalia states "Jimmy Scalia(b.1960) ... currently serves as an adviser and consultant to ... Steve Blauner". There is clearly a COI here, and whilst personal recollections are good, Wikipedia is not the place for them - they are original research. The nomination is not whether this individual is notable, rather the issue is more whether the article itself conforms to policy. If it does not it should be deleted, but recreatable in a way that does. Ros0709 (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACF Units[edit]

List of ACF Units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List serves no useful purpose. ninety:one 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also nominating List of Air Training Corps squadrons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTLINK ninety:one 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list does not only serve no useful purpose, it is unmaintainable. Units of this kind come and go, but it is difficult to have reliable sources about that. Individual groups of any youth organisation should not appear in list articles or indeed in any article. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE -- SPECIFICALLY MOVE BACK TO Army Cadet Force -- the ACF is a large youth organisation in the UK, and this list was originally on the main article until recently moved. The list would have eventually moved to an article on Army Cadet organistations within the UK by region (see Scout Counties) Its purpose are -
  1. Highlight the fact that ACF units are in ALL major towns and cities within the UK. It has also been suggested that in the future, every UK City, town and village could have a section on what community activities are held in its boundaries. The links would help UK Cities, towns and Villages to see what links to them.
  2. Highlight the different unit allegiances within the Army Cadet Force, and from British Army regiments link back to the list of Detachments
  3. Looking at WP:NOTDIRECTORY there is nothing that says that implys that a List of ACF units is related to White or Yellow Pages. In time, history of the counties formation would be integrated into the article itself, with numbers and even famous former cadets.
  4. Finally, this article gives some cadets the ability to edit there first article. Its closely watched and guidance can be given. There are 40,000 young people in the ACF today, and this article may be one of the first ones they view. A list of ACF locations means they can edit which capbadge or where the Company HQ is Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The ATC list is easily maintainable, as the sqns are established by Royal Warrent and there is prehaps 1 change per year at most, official sqn lists do exist. This page is a useful for potential cadets to find their local sqn especially if all sqns provide links to their webpages. Many of the Sqns have rich historys as the organisation was established before WW2 and these can be shared. The ATC list was also split from the main page and provides a useful annex to that page. Many of the reasons given above are also true. (Quagers (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. First, Scout Counties does not include a list of Scout Groups and the general consensus in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting is that such lists should not exist. There were articles on each Scout County that did contain such lists and maintaining them was a nightmare. The County articles have been merged to articles that cover Scouting in the 12 EU UK regions. There are no lists of Scout Groups. Since units are established by Royal Warrant it may well be easier to maintain this list than one on Scout Groups. However, expect young cadets to alter the name which they have misunderstood. Do units have web pages? If so, expect these to be added and clutter up the lists. The real point however is that potential cadets should find their nearest units through Google from an official list on the web, not from wikipedia. These lists are not encyclopedic. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There exists an official ATC "squadron finder" on the web here and a semi-official directory of current ATC squadrons here, so I suppose the List of Air Training Corps squadrons article is of limited value. It is also in danger of becoming a linkfarm, unless the historical aspect is emphasized more. Letdorf (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. If the list was spun out from the main article, there is no need to move it back, as it will be in the history. If editors there want it, it is there choice. But it is not worthwhile as a standalone article.Yobmod (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Army Cadet Force has had a lot of work done since this list was created. I would suggest that a cut 'n' paste job is done to move it back. I firmly believe in time that this would standalone, but not as it is today. Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 11:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to List of Samurai Deeper Kyo characters. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Migeira[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I am going to take the normal editorial action of redirecting to Ontario Curling Association, but anyone who wants to merge, or redirect to a different target, should do so. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dundas Granite Curling Club[edit]

Dundas Granite Curling Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

prod consted with really no reason why it was removed A low quality un-referenced article which despite the efforts of numerous editors has not been significantly improved in two years and tells the reader little or nothing about the curling club Oo7565 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Stwalkerster. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Palao[edit]

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

Speedy tag contested by an IP, with the edit summary "its been up and fine for nearly 4 hours so why is there a need for a speedy deletion?". Article is about a professor that does not show why he is notable. No sources provided, none found. TN‑X-Man 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pity As I wanted to ;earn if this was THIS Mike Paolo: "Palao, Mike 1976, "Dominic James 'Nick' LaRocca. Dixieland Jazz Pioneer." Reprinted from Italian-American Digest, March." Now that the article has been speedied... and the author gone and unhappy.... I may never know. Pity that more newcomers don't understand better about their user space. A quck tag and faster deletion must be quite disconcerting. Was there really such a rush? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't that Mike Palao. The article was about a teacher who began teaching at his local high school in 2002. He had no other accomplishments so that's zero notability. Cunard (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can the admin who closes this AfD take a look at the deleted contents to make sure that "Michael Palao" is indeed a high school teacher who is non-notable and does not meet CSD#A7, in case I've confused this individual with someone else? Cunard (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Zamora[edit]

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

Previously PRODed, so AFD is the correct venue. I have not been able to locate any evidence that he meets WP:ENTERTAINER (there would be at least a few sources if he has "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") or the primary criteria at WP:N in that there are not enough reliable sources to write a fair and balanced article on him with verifiable information. I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier. As it stands, however, it does not appear to meet the WP:N standard (non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources) and nothing aside from a list of his films can be verified about him.

I do realize that Google searching turns up results, but few of them actually relate to this individual. If there was a little more information than just a copy of his IMDB profile, I might support a merge to Cinema of the Philippines but, as it stands now, that would be kind of pointless. Cheers, CP 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE This man is a contemporary of Oscar del Rosario (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Óscar del Rosario), and like del Rosario, he was born in 1905, entered films back before "talkies", survived the Japanesse Occupation of the Phillipines, and created a film career among the grief of war. His early film career will be impossible to source as almost all such hardcopy verifications were destoyed during that occupation. What records of his existance survive that pre-1945 time are based only upon those evidences that existed and survived outside the Philipines. The Oscar del Rosario article was cut/pasted from WikiPilipinas. The Paco Zamora article is a cut/paste as well. Though there is apparently less concern at WikipiliPinas for sourcing... that is no excuse to move those articles over here without consideration of sources. There could be sources in Tagalog... but why bring it here? There should be no time wasted in discussions at AfD... as this is indentical situation in all but name to the deletion of Óscar del Rosario and will suffer the same fate. I admire these men and what they endured. Pity that Wikipedia will not be part of their legacy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So okay.. where are the Tagolog-reading editors? A little help... ? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WikiPilipinas copied its articles from Wikipedia under GFDL. It would be a bad idea to source an article using WikiPilipinas alone. --Lenticel (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and that's why I said Speedy. If its there... fine... their choice. If its here, sources have been lost to time and war... and although one can claim notability is not temporary, and although this person may have goten a great deal of press back before WW2... such sources are difficult, if not impossible, to find in English... cannot now be shown to have existed (although logic would dictate they once did) and the article cannot stay on Wiki English with only an AGF that sources might have once existed. And I'll double-check the article dates to see just who coppied from whom. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes... the various articles on Filipino actors/directors have been here since 2006 and were cut/pasted to WikiPilipinas in 2007. At least the Paco Zamora article will survive there when it gets deleted here, as there is a pride there in the accomplishments of one's fellow citizens surviving great hardship that give make it for them worth including. Wikipedia encourages WP:IAR, and even grants that in some cases exceptions may be made in the guidelines for the further improving of Wiki... but I do not think this will survive the AfD... no more than did the article on Oscar del Rosario. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing verifiability. If sources exist, then it can be recreated, but wikipedia isn't a memorial for alleged war survivors who allegedly made some films. Being in a war does not make one inherently notable, or most of the worlds population could have articles; sources are needed here the same as all other articles, especially controversial biographies.Yobmod (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Sanders[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E, no evidence of lasting notability. Prod tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep -- yes, high schools are considered notable and this article deserves to stay. (Non-admin closure)Ecoleetage (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest-Rolesville High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wake Forest-Rolesville High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced article about a public high school which fails to establish it's notability. Rtphokie (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - what verifiable 3rd sources are available? The article currently has none.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - what counts are the sources available after a news, web, books and scholar search not what is currently in the page. Please explain the searching you carried out, as you would have been expected to do before nomination, and the results. TerriersFan (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing many articles on a google news search. Just a couple [26][27]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep we normally keep high schools. needs improved content, but that's not an AfD issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite speedy keep as this article should have never been brought to AfD. Though it is always preferred, an article does not have to prove its own notability. That notability exists online, and can be easily found by a reader is good enough. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Snowball Keep(Non-admin closure) High schools are considered notable on Wikipedia, so Sanderson High School makes the grade. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson High School[edit]

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

article about a public high school which fails to establish it's notability. Lacks verifiable 3rd party references. Consists mostly of lists of classes, athletics and extra curricular activities. Rtphokie (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Snowball Keep Yes, high schools are notable on Wikipedia. Okay, kids, back to class! (Non-admin closure) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cary High School[edit]

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

unreferenced article about a public high school which fails to establish it's notability. Consists mostly of lists of classes, athletics and extra curricular activities. Rtphokie (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Snowball Keep (Non-admin closure) High schools are notable, as per Wikipedia standards. Go, Panther Creek! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panther Creek High School[edit]

Panther Creek High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Consists mostly of lists of athletics and extra curricular activities. Rtphokie (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep (Non-admin closure) An article about a high school is (A) notable, (b) not notable, (c) a refugee from Facebook. The answer is...A. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apex High School[edit]

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

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Consists mostly of class and extra curricular activity lists. Rtphokie (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep (Non-admin closure). If you paid attention in Wiki class, you would recall that high schools are considered notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millbrook High School (North Carolina)[edit]

Millbrook High School (North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Consists mostly of lists of extra curricular activities. Rtphokie (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wake County Public School System#Middle schools (6-8). , text is under the re-direct if anyone wants to do the merge. TravellingCari 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Campus Middle School[edit]

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

unreferenced article fails to establish why this middle school is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure) This "magnet" sticks because high schools are considered notable subject matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garner Magnet High School[edit]

Garner Magnet High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure) because high schools are notable as Wikipedia subject matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leesville Road High School[edit]

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

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure) I said it before and I will say it again: high schools are considered notable subject matter on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield High School (Raleigh, North Carolina)[edit]

Wakefield High School (Raleigh, North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Consists largely of class lists, schedules, athletics lists, and theater and marching band performance lists Rtphokie (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure) because high schools are considered notable on Wikipedia. Class dismissed! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Creek High School[edit]

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

Completing unfinished nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Cracker Zoo[edit]

Tiny Cracker Zoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book per WP:BK Wareh (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. delete, but it's a valid search term for the band, so I will re-direct it following deletion. TravellingCari 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nomads[edit]

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

Not Notable article. All links to this page are meant for The Nomads (band). InsaneZeroG (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability - Whpq (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burger Chef murders[edit]

Burger Chef murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be notable. Only one source, WP:NOT#NEWS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep an unsolved multiple murder with 4 victims is notable enough. Sources need to be updated. DGG (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep For the express purpose of "give it a chance"- looks notable enough, but desperately needs rewriting. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After 30 years, it is STILL in the news... and since notability is not temporary, it should stay. Agree that article needs updating. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this, in particular. Apparently still the subject of media interest more than a quarter-century later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite Notable? Yes! But the pulpy writing (especially that last paragraph) is a bit much. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, surely this would have gotten considerable press coverage, at least locally, at the time. Everyking (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with citations. The article seems to assert its notability but, especially on such a touchy subject, needs to be backed up by citations. MvjsTalking 08:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

894 (number)[edit]

The result was Speedily deleted by Barneca. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure why this warrants a separate article. It's an unlikely search term and the reference provided is a magazine won't be published until six days from now. TN‑X-Man 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine was published before the cover date. In America, the cover date on magazines reflects the date the magazine goes off the stands, not the publication date (which may be weeks or even months before the cover date.

The American people deserve and need to know the facts. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Barneca. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

899 (number)[edit]

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

Contested prod. I'm not sure why this warrants a separate article, or even why anyone would search for this term. Reference is for a magazine whose publishing date is six days from now. TN‑X-Man 17:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


In America, the date on the cover reflects the date the magazine goes off the stand, not the date of publication, which may be from a week to a month before the cover date. This is a very important fact in contemporary American history, and it deserves to be known. The American people deserve and need to know this. All numbers should have their own page. 899 no less than other numbers. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of The Dogg[edit]

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

Unsourced article on forthcoming album. No independent reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Woody, G11, non-admin closure.. ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleftherios Arelis[edit]

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

Notability - no references to back it. Reads like a CV, Suspect article was created by the subject or a person known to them Mfield (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G11 as promotional puff pieces. So nominated. ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Papadatos[edit]

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

Unreferenced piece with continuing COI issues. No notability established. Mfield (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: ARTICLE NOT TAGGED Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
retagged Mfield (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khar-polis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. WP is not a game guide or a how-to manual, and only source is to a general games page on the Persian WP. GlassCobra 17:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Perfect Laws of Life[edit]

Three Perfect Laws of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Possibly original research. Jll (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Only google hits for "Three Perfect Laws of Life" are this article. No hits on Google news, Google Blog search, Google Books, or Google Groups. Silverfish (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as quickly as possible. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparently deep thoughts someone made up one day. WillOakland (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth law not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia. Delete. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. MvjsTalking 09:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hoffmann[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skater, fails WP:V. At age 15, she's never even competed in senior nationals, which means she fails the WP:ATHLETE criterion of competing at the "highest level of amateur sport." With only 24 unique G-hits [31], almost exclusively Wiki mirrors and figure skating websites, there are no reliable sources evident that would fulfill the general notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment.  RGTraynor  16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in Sachsische Zeitung one of Dresden's two major newspapers, [32],[33],[34]and [35]. RMHED (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: The first article is two paragraphs long. The second is an article on that particular competition; Hoffmann is not the subject. The third is an article on a show by a local ice skating club, and Hoffman's sole presence in the article is that the photo accompanying it has her in it. The final link is another article concerning another competition in which she appeared. All are trivial mentions. Did you read through all of them first?  RGTraynor  21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that two paragraphs in a major regional newspaper combined with the other mentions is enough to meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can indeed expect the Post to do indepth bios on individual figure skaters, something that happens frequently, but beyond that, the answer to the frequently-asked question on Wikipedia "But no one's writing substantive articles in the mainstream media about my subject!!" is "Then WP:V dictates the subject does not merit an article."  RGTraynor  16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Disraeli[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. Sources don't even mention a person by this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails verifiability. Edison (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a load of tosh. If "Law enforcement agencies including Scotland Yard, Interpol, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP-GRC) and United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have no active files on Disraeli" then he probably fails WP:Notability too. It is nice of these organisations to open their files so freely! Perhaps it just takes a phone call along the lines of "Look, I am writing this Wikipedia article..." for them to look someone up for you. Jll (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Delete. Hoax, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Funny how the two Mark Felt interviews listed as sources don't mention his name. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a blatant WP:HOAX. A search for Steven Disraeli finds only Wikipdeia and an ad] for "Even Steven Revenge Consulting". Googling "Even Steven Revenge Consulting" one finds these same two links plus only one more... to "getsteven.com - the "Official" website. What a hoot. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Undead warrior tagged the article as a CSD:G3 candidate. It's not pure vandalism even if it is a hoax so I've declined the CSD. Let the AfD proceed. —  X  S  G  17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone. Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Erickson Air-Crane. MBisanz talk 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erickson Air-Crane Admin Offices Heliport[edit]

Erickson Air-Crane Admin Offices Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS hard. Nothing to merge with at all. Just a private heliport for some business. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and none likely to emerge. Merging or not is an editorial discussion that doesn't require further AfD and there's no consensu to delete TravellingCari 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Possible merge, but if there is no article about the hospital, delete. The previous AfD for this one was based off of a general feeling about inherent notability which has been changed. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. I would totally oppose merging this to the Baker County, Oregon article as suggested in the previous afd, though it might make sense to merge the hospital article there. Katr67 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hospital article is going to need some reliable sources which are specifically about the hospital in order to achieve notability of its own. So far I don't see it. I'm not ruling out that it may exist. I did a Google search and found many mentions of the facility. Most seemed to be derived from databases of hospitals. Newspaper articles or something from the local governments specifically about the facility would work if you can find them. Ikluft (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone who hasn't looked at the hospital article lately, please look at it again. Note I've never had any of my articles deleted for non-notability. (Or any other reason.) Katr67 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe previous AfD, from two months ago, got it right. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your rationale's keep failing to provide anything decent to these discussions. There is a CONSENSUS on the aviation page that states pages like these are to be deleted or merged. The last AfD had comments comparable to jokes. The last AfD had nothing right. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on content and not contributor -- I am not the subject of this discussion and your attempt to put the spotlight on me does not help your cause (though, of course, I loooooove the attention -- who wants my autograph?). Your opinion on the last AfD is strictly an opinion, not a fact. And if there is a CONSENSUS (as opposed to a consensus) on another page about this article, then the people from that other page should bring their consensus here, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be ideal if they would bring their opinions here, but, I cannot notify that project due to people who would call that canvassing. Either way, places of transportation are not inherently notable. Nothing is. (Schools are borderline) Every wikipedia article must pass WP:RS and WP:N. When there is a template to put on an aviation page that includes the three sources, the ones that are on every page related to airports, that should ring a bell that the sites aren't really the best. They are just directory listings. Wikipedia is not a directory. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one recommended canvassing. I pointed out that your argument that the consensus on the aviation page is irrelevant to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just trying to help here... I can see UW's wording didn't seem to work for E, but does show frustration on UW's part. I understood the intent as UW asking E to provide clearer description of the reasoning behind the statements as WP:Consensus and WP:POLLS recommend. This needs to be a discussion, not just casting votes. Knowing the editor's thoughts behind a conclusion, rather than just the conclusion, helps us to meaningfully discuss the matter. Ikluft (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but why the frustration? It is just a discussion on the merits of an article about a heliport. I know this is not a vote but a !vote. I thought I made it clear that the last AfD (which was only two months ago) offered a satisfactory conclusion to the previously-debated question and that there was no reason to revisit the subject. I hope that helps. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on the previous AfD was just in agreement to the previous person who had voted keep. The keep votes in the last discussion were trying to claim that all places of transportation have inherent notability and that the FAA directory listings were sources enough. As recent discussions have proven, this is not enough by a long shot. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote stands, and I will thank the nominator to cease needling me because I don't agree with him on this particular discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not needling you. I'm stating that you never really gave any point as to why it should be kept in either discussion. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. If you read the last AfD, I supported keeping the article based solely on the arguments put forth by our Chilean friend. I felt his arguments were succinct -- and rather than repeat them verbatim or try to paraphrase them, I simply stated that my support was based on his presentation. As for this discussion, I still believe the arguments from the last AfD (which was only two months ago) remain valid and that no cogent argument was made to justify removing an article that was closed as Keep so recently. Again, I would ask the nominator to please stop putting a disprortionate focus on my contribution to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are often asked about their points in AfD. It's an every day thing. You are being asked about yours because you are the only person who is saying keep. It would be the same in any other AfD. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you think y'all could take this discussion to your talk pages? Katr67 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back Sure! Everyone come on over to my place -- you're all welcome! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consensus shown by AfD records is that private-use airports are verifiable via FAA airport records but fail WP:N unless they have other WP:RS specifically about them. This one fails by those criteria. I wrote an essay expanding on private-use airports failing notability at User:Ikluft/essay/Private-use airports. Ikluft (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to hospital article. No notability on its own, but an article about a hospital would be notable and it is worth noting the presence of a heliport at the hospital. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful... the hospital article is new and doesn't have WP:RS of its own yet. Unless that gets fixed, it could be up for a prod/AfD of its own shortly. Ikluft (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 100+ years of history and it may be the only hospital in that county. I seriously doubt it could be deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup, understood. But we all know truth is not Wikipedia's test for notability. It needs WP:RS - and is technically in WP-policy limbo without it. I might add a {{notability}} tag if no one adds any sources soon. Ikluft (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nevermind... I see you added the sources. So I'll withdraw my note of caution. Ikluft (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G11 by Athaenara , NAC Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pix-Yu[edit]

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

This site is in Beta mode. It has also some notability issue: google returns only 1250 hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=-site%3Apix-Yu.com+pix-Yu.com&btnG=Search Photoact (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tree (The Folk Experience)[edit]

Tree (The Folk Experience) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable organiation set in a college in September 2008. Too early for glory, I say. Twri (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gravier[edit]

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

Non-notable minor college football coach, no substantive, independent articles about him. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career was in NAIA, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"). Prod removed by creator stating "article has been improved and sources added," but the sources are still only from the school in question and not independent, and none establish his notability per WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel.  Ravenswing  15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep rather than repeat detailed response, please read my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) which should apply here as well. Additionall points include reaching quarterfinal playoffs for the NAIA national championships in his first year of coaching, and qualifying for the national championships his last season. His programs were marked by outstanding success on the field. If you have questions, please ask!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He did not, however, coach in the national championships, nor would that qualify someone for an article any more than being the coach of a Little League World Series team would, a post that would also arguably come with "outstanding success on the field."  Ravenswing  18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response yes, he did coach in the national championship tournament for two games in their first appearance and one game in the last appearance. And this is not little league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did not coach in the national championship GAME. As far as WP:ATHLETE holds, it is no different than Little League.  Ravenswing  20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said it was the game, it was the tournament. The article is specific. And you really expect us to believe that a football team of 12-year-olds (i.e. little league) could compete toe-to-toe with this group of college players?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are deliberately misreading RGT's comments. He never made such a claim, and it would be ridiculous. What matters here is notability, not the size of the players involved. Moreover, RGT didn't say that you said it was the game. The point is, he didn't coach in the championship game, apparently, and if he had, he might/would/could have been more notable than he is now (now, he is not notable). Such intentional obfuscation does not help your case. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, arguing in good faith would be a good idea. This is getting a little bit raw.  Ravenswing  21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy for everyone to make good faith arguments. Please clarify what you meant by "it is no different than Little League." Further, I mean no deliberate misreading and don't like being called a liar (no one does).--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After going into this on a dozen AfDs or more, do you genuinely need me to spell this stance out yet again? It's terribly simple. WP:ATHLETE specifically and explicitly states that competitors who have played at the "highest level of amateur sports" are notable. NAIA isn't at the highest level of amateur sports. Therefore, as far as meeting WP:ATHLETE is concerned, there's no difference between NAIA, jucos, high schools or an 8-year-olds' T-ball league. They are all equally non-notable.  Ravenswing  04:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about me, it's about any other editor that would come along not familair with your stance. If you really want to discuss generally, then please go the the College Football Notability Essay like I've been asking you for some time now but you flatly refuse.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much, yes. If you'd like to know why, I'll be happy to discuss that on a talk page.  Ravenswing  15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hanson[edit]

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

Non-notable minor college football coach and pastor, no substantive, independent articles about him. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"). Prod removed by creator stating "article has been improved and sources added," but the sources are still only from the schools in question and not independent, and none establish his notability per WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel.  Ravenswing  15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Haslam (football coach)[edit]

Kevin Haslam (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor college football coach and administrator, no substantive, independent articles about him. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA and low level colleges, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"), fails the prof test as well. Prod removed by creator stating "article has been improved and sources added," but the sources are still only from the schools in question and not independent, and none establish his notability per WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:PROF. See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel.  RGTraynor  15:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep in general for reasons outlined at the essay discussing college football coaches. But for more detail, see below in a point-by-point response:
    • Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA and low level colleges, not at the "highest level of amateur sports") No clear-cut definition is given at WP:ATHLETE what specifically measures the "highest level of amateur sports" for American football or any other sport. There is an established college football project that has discussed the matter thoroughly and continues to arrive on the conclusion that "college football" is the highest level of the amateur sport and not necessarily "NCAA Division I FBS" football. Reasons include avoiding violaitons of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as the benefits of maintaining the data. As a parallel, Wikipedia tends to keep all high school articles, regardless of student population size. There is also additional historical value, the potential merger of the NAIA and the NCAA, that schools sometimes switch from NAIA to NCAA, and teams sometimes compete across the organizing bodies. There are many, many reasons to support the point that NAIA college football programs are among the "highest level" of the sport.
    • fails the prof test as well. This is also discussed on the essay in the section 'Academic Standards and how a game can be considered the athletic equivalent to an academic published paper. The essay goes into details that would be redundant to re-print here. Not covered in the essay is the additional point that the subject served as athletic director for at least two schools, which would qualify for criteria #5 "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment... at a major institution of higher education and research." -- I maintain that both "head football coach" and "athletic director" would both be that appointment and meet that requirement.
    • Prod removed by creator stating "article has been improved and sources added," but the sources are still only from the schools in question and not independent, Yes the prod was removed, as per recommended procedure and done in good faith. However, a quick survey of the sources show that while school sources are used, there are also sources outside the school: Topeka Capital-Journal, Northern Sun Conference, NJCFCA, and the College Football Data Warehouse.
    • and none establish his notability per
      • WP:BIO, Meets basic criteria through multiple independent sources as stated under Bio's Basic critera as well as Additional criteria of a widely recognized contribution of being the founding coach or first football coach and athletic director of the football program at the University of Saint Mary.
      • WP:ATHLETE (discussed above)
      • or WP:PROF. (discussed above)
    • See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel These AfD discussions are about other coaches, not this coach. Yes, they can be useful and all editors are welcome to review them. There are also more to review at the college football notability essay Head Coach Notability Discussion Library and on the College Football Project page.
    • Additional points: In previous AfD discussions listed above, nominator has accused the project of attempting to sidestep policy by making its own notability policy and expressing that as policy. While this has never been the intention, it is possible that an essay can be mis-interpreted and/or mis-applied as a policy. Please note the intent of the essay is to further enhance, clarify, and discuss policy as it pertains specifically to college football and not to overturn it. The essay provides the additional benefit of having potential repeated discussiosn in one place. Wikipedia encourages writing essays and that has been done (and continues to be done) at the college football project. Also, please note that on many occasions input has been requested from both inside and outside the college football project for feedback on the essay, and very little has been provied on that essay's talk page. This (along with the extended period of time) has given a form of pocket consensus or at least general acceptance of the concepts discussed in the essay. Anyone who would like to contribute to that essay to further assist editors in creating quality articles about college football is welcome to do so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Without indulging in an equally rambling counter essay, (1) In terms of college football, the near-unanimous consensus is that "highest level of amateur sports" applies exclusively to Division I NCAA football, the only demurrers being the aforementioned three or four editors at the CFB Wikiproject. NAIA is three rungs below that; (2) Mr. McDonald's sole rationale for Keep on a number of AfDs were "Per CFB:COACH," and when challenged, attempted at first to defend it on the grounds of claiming to have achieved a broad consensus for it; (3) WP:BIO requires that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail ..." I doubt many (beyond CFB, of course) would agree that a college with 683 undergrads is a "major" anything, or that being the founding coach in a NAIA program that size is a "widely recognized contribution;" (4) That Mr. McDonald feels that "a game can be considered the athletic equivalent to an academic published paper" I don't argue, but I'd wager he'd be met at best with derision if he took that premise to the academic community, most of whom don't publish a dozen academic papers a season; and (5) Mr. McDonald has not hesitated to claim other specific AfDs as consensus, and I'm surprised to hear him now discount the notion.  RGTraynor  18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Questions/Comments:
          • I only made a long entry because you made a long entry. Rather than just respond with short snippets, I thought it best to reply with detail, this way other editors can respond easily. If you would like to pull some of the points of your nomination, I would be happy to reduce my responses.
          • Where is the "near unanimous consensus" on NCAA Div I you mention?
          • The NAIA is not exactly "three rungs below" NCAA Div I. All are college level. 4 years of play in the NAIA makes a player inelligible for any play in NCAA, and vice versa. Players are drafted into the NFL from the NAIA and all levels of the NCAA. Granted, Div I has more money, more audience, and more recognition--but they are the same level in many respects. Popularity does not necessarily equal notability.
          • I made many other statements at other AfDs besides just consensus. Would you really like me to catalog them here in addition to the essay I mentioned?
          • Stating that 683 students is too small shows a clear violation of WP:NOTBIGENOUGH and by arguing that being the founding coach is not a strong enough contribution reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now, if you have a guideline or policy that states that if there were 684 students (or some other larger number) then it would be big enough, would you please bring it up now?
          • Academic papers and games--I'm sure there would be a lot of people in academia who don't like football or sports in general. Is there an English department information director or a Physics department information director?? No? Okay, maybe a Sports information director. Even the smallest of small colleges have that if they have any athletic program at all. Not liking an argument does not make it invalid.
          • More on Academic: And you still haven't addressed the point about criteria #5 where he served both as head coach and athletic director
          • Still more on Academic: even if consensus is that he would ultimately fail the academic test, there's still the sports and bio and all the other parts. The article must fail all of these, not just one and out.
          • I'm not discounting that consensus can be expressed through AfDs, I simply pointed out that you only posted the AfDs that support your point of view. I provided a broader base for editors passing to this discussion to have more information choices.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--not because he was so eminently unsuccessful, despite the author's attempts to make something out of nothing (he was claimed to be the third-winningest coach at St. Mary's, with one win and seventeen losses--third-winningest out of three!), but because indeed, there is no notability, no publications, nothing of interest except for a few brief passages that report his coming and going at various schools. OH, that business about a game being a paper? That's laughable, and I speak as an academic here. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a game is like an academic paper, this person, as far as can be established from the article and its sources, wrote 50 papers and received a failing grade on 42 of them. That's not good, though it might be notable in its own right, like the Lanterne Rouge in the Tour de France. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As to the concept of relating win-loss to pass fail: If a "win" is a "pass" and a "loss" is a "fail" then I guess so... but is the sole purpose of the game to win? Certainly winning is one of the purposes of competitive sport, but if winning were the only purpose then Harvard University and Yale and the other Ivy League schools would not have competetive sports at all. I suggest having an open mind and leaving a little room for some other purpose or purposes of the sport before rushing to a conclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please let's not get teary-eyed over the philosophical and educational aspects of sports. First of all, I don't get a page on Wikipedia because some of my students went to graduate school. This argument of having an 'open mind' is specious, probably facetious, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion. If you are in sports, and you want to be noted, you must win. By the same token, if you are a coach, you better win games or you'll get fired--which is what happened here. He's not Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards. The guy is simply not notable. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mm ... really, we need a healthy dose of WP:SOAPBOX in the discussion. Wikipedia is not an advocacy forum to put college coaches on an equal academic plateau as researchers, nor are we bound to consider -- indeed, we are bound NOT to consider -- the moral, philosophical or spiritual values of sport in our society in gauging whether a subject passes WP:V or WP:BIO. We have black-letter policy before us, and one simple question to answer: does this subject meet the criteria or does he not?  RGTraynor  18:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite. I'm certainly not going to get into a point-by-point slanging match, the more especially given Mr. McDonald's propensity to answer a 100 word deletion rationale with 750 words, but the standard seems to be to buttress a non-notable coaching position at an obscure institution with two or three other non-notable posts at equally obscure institutions. Given the amount of effort he's placed into the many similar articles he's written, I don't blame him for passionately defending them, but the clear, overwhelming and consistent consensus over the last several weeks is that Division III, NAIA or lower college football play just is not notable, and gigantic essays don't overturn that. Three times zero or ten times zero, it still equals zero in the end.  RGTraynor  19:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. I support your AfD, and the other two. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have been over this. Appeals to CFB:COACH against WP:N and WP:ATHLETE don't win the day. A News search with confounding terms removed doesn't leave many promising hits. Protonk (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question why do you think that CFB:COACH is against WP:N and WP:ATHLETE? Have you read CFB:COACH?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course I have. The essay as written is clearly, unambiguously, and avowedly adversarial toward WP:N and WP:ATLHETE. WP:N says: covered in third party sources in sig. detail. WP:ATHLETE says "played at the highest level of amateur sports==>probably covered in third party sources". Athlete is designed to stop us from deleting articles on Olympians and professional players because we don't see a source readily at hand. Both are a means to an end: creation of articles free from NPOV, BLP and WP:IINFO problems. CFB:COACH says that all coaches, regardless of the level the team plays at, are to be included. This means that an overwhelming majority of biographical articles will not be sourced to biographies or to material that is independent from the subject's employer. As a result we get articles that are merely work histories and win loss records or articles that inflate the importance of the subject. neither result is acceptable. The community requires that we work with an inclusion standard that will basically result in articles that meet our policies. WP:N does that. To a lesser extent, WP:ATHLETE does that. CFB:COACH does not. As written it is NOT a functioning guideline for inclusion. It is a set of arguments to be used in AfD in order to keep the articles that the project wants. Does that answer your question? Protonk (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly; CFB:COACH is, as you say, about 5% "Every man who has ever coached college ball is notable" and 95% "Here's what you say to counter every argument the deletionists over on AfD might throw at you." It's a large part of the reason I've declined Mr. McDonald's kind invitation to go over and debate CFB's criteria: they don't have criteria so much as a polemic.  RGTraynor  00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly does not meet WP:ATHLETE. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep, notability has been sufficiently established (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Culinary Institute[edit]

Western Culinary Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

lacks third party sources to establish notability, fails WP:CORP Michellecrisp (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: though the article is poorly written—spammy even—I believe the institution itself is plenty notable. It has a huge number of students for a school of this type, and is the most frequently mentioned culinary school in the area, despite there being many community colleges and universities offering culinary arts degrees. —EncMstr (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. You should have seen it before we reverted the changes from their PR department. The school was notable before it was taken over by whatever corporation runs it now, and it has a long history in Portland. Aside from the program at Linn-Benton Community College, I believe it is the only culinary school in Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only are there third party sources already there, but a quick search (which nominators are supposed to do before listing) turns up many more. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost 1000 students? Even if it is poorly written, it's certainly notable. Tedder (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- maybe a speedy keep? The school is plenty notable, see points above. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herron[edit]

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

Non-notable company. This article has lacked reliable third-party resources since 2006. If not deleted entirely, it should at least be merged into Sigma Pharmaceuticals Limited. Gr0ff (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Electric Company. The content is under the redirect for anyone wanting to merge. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto The Director[edit]

Otto The Director (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live Samurai[edit]

Saturday Night Live Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into one of t he Saturday Night Live character lists, or else to Belushi. But this is not the way to do it--individual characters selected on no particular system. Some of the characters there have separate articles, some are redirected to the actor performing them, and I cannot perceive any particular pattern. Some rational basis should be found for this besides the accident of sourcing. DGG (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Samurai character actually did appear in Marvel Comics: [36], [37]. There are also brief discussions of the samurai in various other books, like [38] and [39]. There's no need to delete this entirely. Either keep it or merge it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zagalejo's links, because of the arbitrary uselessness (organization-wise) of redirecting skits willy-nilly, and because this could almost certainly very easily be sourced by someone who likes SNL (not me, for sure), and has purchased one of the myriad books on the subject that came out in the last five or six years. Ford MF (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sources found above. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Body therapy[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fork of Alternative medicine, where material is already present and dealt with in context. The article is a simple list copied from a "for Dummies" book, and adds noting that isn't already in the AltMed article. Any possible expansion of this article should actually take place in the AltMed article. This is one of a number of similar articles that have recently been created, and if the AltMed page would benefit from splitting this certainly isn't a good way of doing it. This is also a new term with little or no evidence of notability. The current AltMed page was also created by mergeing smaller articles that covered similar topics as this was the will of the community. Verbal chat 13:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Verbal chat 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Afd is not a voting procedure. I think it's obvious that you want to delete this article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand your comment. If I didn't want it deleted I wouldn't have brought the AfD. My reasons for deletion are given above, and I'm making clear my position. I'm fully aware that AfD is not a vote, thanks. I'll expand a bit. Verbal chat 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What he means is that it is unnecessary to !vote delete especially when the nom indicates deletion in the nom's summary. MuZemike (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many AfD's start that way, and I see nothing about it in WP:AfD, and sometimes AfDs are brought where the nominator is neutral. Verbal chat 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Most discussion do not in fact start that way, for precisely the reasons that the above two editors have stated. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I said "Many", not "Most". This is very off topic and distracting. Please keep to the topic at hand. Thanks. Verbal chat 15:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've !voted at AfDs that I've started before, particularly if I hope to get input from relatively inexperienced editors. It gives them a template to follow. I've always assumed that the closing admin was smart enough to ignore the line. While it's not necessary for the nom to !vote, it's not necessarily a bad thing, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (A3) — No content, nothing but links. MuZemike (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A3 Only contains links to other articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • slow down A3 does not cover this--it covers articles consisting just of external tags, not those consisting of internaal links, which are better regarded as a disam page. There are some general books on this as a general mode of therapy, -see Worldcat -- but I think the generally used term is Bodywork, and this should be a redirect to that. DGG (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Bodywork (alternative medicine). It is a reasonable search term. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bodywork (alternative medicine). I'll bet that this stub's original author didn't know that Bodywork already existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. J. Khan[edit]

M. J. Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pakistani academic. Too marginal in my opinion. Not that he hasn't had a nice career: he's currently a Fulbright fellow (which is prestigious but not so uncommon) and has a nice record of publication. Alas, this does not mean that there exists significant third-party coverage of his life or career. Google search is problematic because of this guy and others who also share the same name and initials. Pichpich (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McGill Redmen Soccer[edit]

McGill Redmen Soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity article (only significant editor is clearly affiliated with the team), article makes no claim to notability, no verifiable secondary sources. Chabuk [ T • C ] 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. A bit of material might be mergeable into McGill Redmen but I think the useful material is already there. PKT 13:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable biographical article. Merge if possible. Jordan Contribs 14:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This is not a vanity article, but provides factual information about university level athletics. Also, editor is not necessarily affiliated with the team, but could be any university student. User:Protugal_Love 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal love (talk • contribs) [reply]
— Protugal_Love (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete I don't see what the problem is with the article. If you view external links there is a claim to notability. Further, none of the information presented seems to be subjective or contain normative statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alldaybaby (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Alldaybaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. The point is that there are already articles about McGill Redmen and McGill Martlets. There is no call for a separate article about this year's Redmen soccer team. They're no more remarkable than their counterparts at the other universities. The most equitable treatment is to include a section about the soccer team and other varsity teams on the Redmen article. PKT 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with McGill Redmen. User:DoubleBlue and comment per User:PKT--ClubOranjeTalk 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I think there are several other pages like this which could do with being discussed under a wider audience. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudette[edit]

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

Incorrect disambiguation page for a first name where the individuals noted also use last name (contrast with John, where the linked individuals do not use a last name. Note that this variety of usage is specifically prohibited under the disambiguation policy. Bongomatic (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I see your point, but we also have pages such as Jonathan, which also includes people with Jonathan as their first name. Tizio 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Falls under WP:OSE, but in this example, not for long. I'm not going on a crusade though. Bongomatic (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't really covered by WP:OSE; we are not talking about two similar topics, we are talking about the same: first names. There is no way to differentiate a first name from another (contrarily to bands, people, websites, etc.) See section "Precedent in usage" in OSE. Tizio 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of a name disambiguation is that it's a collection of overlapping titles or redirects from alternative titles — i.e. it is for people who are commonly referred-to solely by that name. It is common practice to refer to people solely by their family names, which is why there are name disambiguations for surnames, such as Bush. ("Bush vows to stabilise economy", reads one of today's headlines.) There are people who are known solely by their given name "Jonathan". A disambiguation here would have to be for people who are known solely by their given name "Claudette" (as, for examples, Kylie and Madonna, are). None of the entries on this list apparently are. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that this shouldn't be a disambiguation page. It should be a page about a first name. Tizio 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? It's useful as a disambiguation page, so move to Claudette (disambiguation), and if an article about the name is desired, turn the redirect into that article. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. First names not disambiguated by. And not enough for disambig page: at least 3 articles required. Twri (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "at least three required"? Not strictly true (desired, yes, required, no), but in any case this had nine, and I've added a handful more - including one to something actually called "Claudette", rather than having it as a first name. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, you're missing the point. Name disambiguation pages are provided for people who have the same name, not the same first name. Bongomatic (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could name dozens of similar dab pages based almost entirely on first names. And before you respond with WP:OSE, I'd suggest you actually read what this essay (yes, it's only an essay, albeit a widely accepted one) actually says. As User:Tizio has already pointed out, WP:OSE, correctly, says that you cannot base the worth of an article against other existing articles in order to say whether an article is worth by dint of the subject's notability - that is, you can't say "X deserved to have an article, since Y has one and is just as notable". In this case, however, this isn't what's being done - a large number of disambiguation pages exist, based on first names. Is this right or wrong? Opinions no doubt vary - there certainly doesn't seem to be wide consensus one way or the other on Wikipedia - but given the large number that exist they seem to be either accepted or at least tolerated by many editors. In any case, as I pointed out, there is now at least one article linked from here which is not for a person, but rather for a song - and the page also links to a disambiguation page for hurricanes called Claudette. As such, even if there were no "people with Claudette as a first name" listed, it would still be marginally viable as a dab page. As it is, there's more than enough here to keep it. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . If deletion is still desired, then the articles should be, by clear consensus established below and the fact that schools are notable for different reasons, AfD'd separately. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest-Rolesville High School[edit]

Middle Creek High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fuquay-Varina High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wakefield High School (Raleigh, North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leesville Road High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Durant Road Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Garner Magnet High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Centennial Campus Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Millbrook High School (North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apex High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Panther Creek High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cary High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanderson High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wake Forest-Rolesville High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced articles about a public high and middle schools. Article quality varies from pretty good to horrible mess. Subject lacks notability. Articles consist largely of lists of sports and classes available failing to establish why these schools are notable. Rtphokie (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the school district(s) as is the usual consensus for such articles. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and renominate separately if you must. There is generally no consensus on what to do with school articles. Some think that only the most notable ones should be included, some think all should be included, some think all should be merged, and some think that it depends on the situation. It is not at all obvious that all these school articles deserve the same treatment, and a bundled nomination like this will only end in a complete trainwreck. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Sjakkalle. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my understanding is that all "high schools" are considered notable though I agree taht at least a reasonable attempt to provide references should be made. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not discounting the possibility of selectively relisting some seperately. High schools are rarely outright deletion candidates, and even the nom admits these are of unequal article quality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Not all of these school articles are the same in quality, so why bundle them? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Close Most High schools are notable. Most can be referenced with a little searching. Definately shouldn't be deleted in a bundle. If any are not just un-referenced, but actually unreferencable they chould be nominated separately.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural KeepClose this malformed nomination and nominate separately. Most high schools have been found to be notable in past AFDs, and hould not have been bundled with middle schools. Unlike articles should not be nominated in mass, because it becomes impossible to !vote in a way that is comprehensible if one does not agree with the deletion of all.
    • (edit conflict) Beat me to it. Closing as a speedy keep now. Articles warranting deletion can be AfD'd separately. MuZemike (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They all have similar problems so I thought I'd save time by grouping them. It is not a matter of all them having to either go or stay, if there are exceptions they can be handled but if editors prefer to comment on them individually, so be it.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aberra Molla[edit]

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

This is a vanity page created and written by Molla. (It was originally deleted, but then reinstated at Molla's request, which explains why his is not the first edit in the page history. The identity of User:Ethiopic and Molla is apparent among other places by his giving permission on the talk page for another editor to use his picture.) It is completely unnotable except for the quite dubious claim that he Unicodified Ethiopic, which I am unable to confirm with the Unicode Consortium. One source, on a web site which Molla has written several articles for (these articles are primary "sources" for the article), a paean calling him the "Father of Ethiopic", says that he created the first computer font for Ethiopic. Possibly true, but a long way from creating the Unicode proposal, and in any case we don't have bios on every person who created a font or even who wrote an accepted Unicode proposal. Molla has also added a claim to the Ge'ez alphabet article that he computerized the script,[42] and then repeatedly deleted claims that other people were also responsible for computerizing Ethiopic.[43][44] kwami (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, basically per nom. The only serious claim to notability is the claim to be the first to computerize the Ethiopic language. However, such a claim would need some serious verification and collaboration by independent reliable sources which does not seem to be available here. Moreover, the diffs provided by the nom show that there are valid competing claims references to which User:Ethiopic has been removing. Little or nothing of relevance in googlenews[45] and googlebooks[46]. Also, apparent WP:AUTO/WP:COI problems here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dr. Molla is quite notable for his achievements within the Ethiopian community, both online and off; note the Amharic version includes this article, and if you cut and paste, google search for his name in the Ethiopic text, you will get many more hits to Amharic language sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which achievements are those? AFAIK he hasn't contributed to Unicode as he claims, and lots of people have created Ethiopic fonts. In fact, in what I've read on his website, he lambastes Unicode for not accepting his proposals (the "enemies of Ethiopic" are making imperfect proposals, etc.). His English and Amharic sources are mostly written by himself, or interviews with him posted at his website. According to the 1991 article, he created an Ethiopic IME, but I don't know that that's notable. Maybe mention of his name in the Ge'ez alphabet article, but a vanity autobiography? Also, what is notable for Amharic wiki may not be notable here—I'm sure there are lots of local US politicians who are not notable enough to make it onto Amharic wikipedia—and the Amharic article is just a stub.
I've checked Google. There are 17 hits.[47] They are Molla's own website, English Wiki, Amharic Wiki, wiki mirrors, a couple web stats sites, a site on AIDS that mentions the CDCP brochure he translated into Amharic, and an Oromo blog, which allocates Molla one line of print for one of his patents, and then in the very next line credits Obbo Ayana Birru for having "Invented Amharic Type writer and brough the Geez scripts to the 21st century." That is, the only independent source denies Molla credit for his claims! kwami (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to also check the more common spelling "አበራ ሞላ" that brings up 69 more hits including several more articles about him in Amharic press. The Amharic wiki has only 3000-3500 articles total and is still waiting for many articles to be written, including many notable US politicians, but as knowledge grows over the decades and centuries, who knows how much more complete it could be one day 100's of years from now. But if you do not want to include notable information for the English encyclopedia, it is probably your loss. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A search for "አበራ ሞላ" gives 70 hits in the plain google search[48] (of which only 13 appear to be from unique addresses[49]), but 0 hits in googlebooks[50], 0 hits in googlenews[51] and 0 hits in googlescholar[52]. Of the 70 plain google search hits most appear to be some kind of wiki-mirrors as well as blogs ands bulletin boards, and certainly not passing WP:RS. A far cry from even passing WP:V, not to mention WP:N or WP:BIO here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether he actually did what he claims to have done is beyond the scope of our discussion here, but appears to be at the very least disputable and not exactly supported by any reliable sources I could find. Additionally, while autobiography/COI is not always in itself a reason to delete, when coupled with marginal-at-best notability the case becomes far more clear. Delete as being of questionable notability and unsupported by reliable sources and thus failing WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TE's rationale. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not supported by reliable sources. Also not a sufficiently notable person.Annette46 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the comments above of Nsk92, reliable sources are lacking to verify the claims. Edison (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd asked User:Codex Sinaiticus to join us, as he contributed to the Amharic article, and now that I'm writing this I see he's Til Eulenspiegel, above. Til, you'd said he's a "prominent businessman among the Ethiopian community", but that you don't know about his Unicode claims. From what Molla's been writing, it would seem the Unicode stuff is his main claim to fame, veterinary work is second, and he makes no mention of his business. (I assume you mean his computer business, not his vaccines?) He describes himself as "an Ethiopian veterinarian and writer", but the only piece of writing he describes is an Amharic adaptation of an CDCP Aids brochure—hell, I'm a writer if that's all that's required: I've published malaria pamphlets in languages that didn't have any, and published in other fields as well, but wouldn't claim to be notable. So we're down to his veterinary work. Is being a USDA veterinarian, the field test (two patents for the same test, it would seem), and student work at CSU "notable"? The field test that the patents are for isn't notable enough for even Molla to explain what exactly it is. But my opposition stems primarily from his self-aggrandizement (evidenced also by his deleting mention of any other contributors to digitizing Amharic). kwami (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you all are being ridiculous, and some, such as kwami, are just being childish - why else would he start a discussion with the comment "This is a vanity page". If you can't read amharic, then you may not know all of the contributions that Dr. Molla has made to the Ethiopian community or to advancements in computers. Until you learn, you cannot say what information is out there or the effect of Dr. Molla's contributions. Those who can read and understand Amharic know better than to delete this page. Also, wikipedia is meant to be a global encylopedia, not just an encylopedia for those who speak English. The fact that you are considering deleting a page because you haven't found corroboration in English is an insult to the community. Finally, there is nothing wrong with deleting information that is incorrect, which is what was done in the past, which frankly just makes me wonder if you bothered to discuss the reasons for deleting that information as much as you are discussing this now.... no... I didn't think so. [anon.]

Amharic sources are fine, but this has no supporting sources whatsoever. There are no significant Amharic sources online, not just no English sources. We also have a general policy against autobiographies, and this is a vanity page—I mean, come on, stuff he helped his professors do in school? I could make my life sound worthy of an encyclopedia article if you gave me free reign. It has nothing to do with him being Amharic. If you, our anonymous voter, want the article to stay, why not add the Amharic sources that back it up? kwami (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although JonStrines has already redirected it. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specialist (comics)[edit]

Specialist_(comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

The Specialist was a supporting character in a couple of issues of Spiderman 2099 who was killed in his last appearance: there's not much more to say about him than that he exists and so isn't really notable enough for a whole article of his own. JonStrines (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Marvel 2099#Villains, even if that's not perfect. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a query: what's the connection with Tyler Stone to warrent a merge there? I would have thought Spidey 2099 would be the better fit, as its the title of the comic the character appeared in. JonStrines (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justification from: "The Specialist worked for Tyler Stone as an assassin and field operative for the Stark/Fujikawa Corporation in the year 2099. At the behest of Tyler Stone, the Specialist captured Kasey Nash in order to lure the Spider-Man of that era into battle" I technically don't mind a merge to spider-Man 2099 but thought the slightly better option might be to his boss. My transferable vote is to merge it to Spider-Man 2099. (Emperor (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
We could do that now and just close the AFD as a merge/withdraw. BOZ (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a merge/withdraw: I think the character warrants a mention, just not a whole article. JonStrines (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you do both, then it will all be over.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've merged and redirected. No idea what I have to do to close the AfD though - the wiki artuicle says I don't have to do anything, so hopefully that's true. JonStrines (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I think just leave it like it is? It's a good compromise, especially when it's not a hotly contested affair. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Golbez (G6). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manhattan Project (book[edit]

The Manhattan Project (book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I Vock (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Video projector. MBisanz talk 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home Theater Projectors[edit]

Home Theater Projectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, appears to have been written by the owner of the website that is the only reference. —G716 <T·C> 08:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Video projector treelo radda 09:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep "Home theater projector" is a subject discussed in 19 books per Google Book search [53] and in 520 sources per Google news archive [54] indicating that reliable sources exist to expand and improve the article. See [55]. See [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] [62] , [63] , [64] , [65]. Edison (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge to Video projector, even in the light (no pun intended) of some sourcing, it still doesn't seem too different from this article in terms of content. Changed !vote to include merge and rationale. treelo radda 17:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Video projector. I'm not sure that there is anything to merge. In addition I believe that much of this article is WP:OR or in other ways suspect. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Did you even look at the reliable sources I found with substantial discussion of "home theater projectors" before you claimed "original researce?" Edison (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Rindner[edit]

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

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Seems to be an abbreviated CV —G716 <T·C> 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 08:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not verifying notability. Google searches bring up Amazon listings for his book and Wiki-esque pages only. Not even an entry on IMDB, and having trawled through full cast lists for the films that he allegedly worked on... no mention there either. I think he needs a few more years under his belt before he reaches similar notability to people like Wayne Fitzgerald or even Kyle Cooper. OBM | blah blah blah 09:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No reliable sources --Megaboz (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough Annette46 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this is the same David Rindner who authored "FormZ Modeling For Visual Effects and Animation". In ITS field it appears quite notable. In the field of computer graphics design, Rindner is an award winner. Forget his position in the film industry... when you look into his graphic background and expertise, there is a lot more to this guy than the article shared. I am curious as to how these sources slipped past the author, as that seems to be a much better source of notability than indicated in the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Cabot[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect to a suitable list Significant but not central character in major film (and presumably the equally major Clancy book on which its was based). Certainly does not seem signif enough to have a full article, but should be part of a combination article or a list or mentioned in the film article & redirected. It would help if noms for deletion considered these possibilities in cases like this. DGG (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not significant or notable outside the film, with an optional recreation as a redirect. DGG, it's my understanding that TTN is vilified and reverted for making redirects or merger proposals on this kind of article, such that he feels AFD is the only outlet where he can bring his proposals. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge/Redirect per lack of (independent) WP:NOTABILITY. The plot is already covered in The Sum of All Fears (film), and the reception sentence is nothing more than "I liked Morgan Freeman's performance". – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rmhermen as vandalism (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Tami[edit]

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

Suspected hoax, per lack of existance of sources. Punkmorten (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irene McCormack[edit]

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

This article seems to be here as a memorial. She does not appear to be notable except for the manner of her death Grahame (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rjd0060 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the creator[edit]

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

Originally a piece of complete bollocks about a 15 million selling album by a redlinked band, an IP removed the prod and the obviously untrue sections, but now all we're left with is an "independently released" album by said redlinked band with no assertion of notability whatsoever. The 39 Google hits don't contain any evidence of notability either, or anything close to a reliable source. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about abortion by country[edit]

List of articles about abortion by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was prodded due to articles best being presented in categories, editor removed prod tags. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 06:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of content is what categorisation is for. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a category is enough for this. Alexius08 (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I re-targetted a couple of links in abortion law templates to the better Abortion_law#National_laws, which should get rid of many incoming links. Many others come from Template:Abortion, which has a link labelled "abortion by country". This initially seemed necessary, but the main article also has the abortion by country template at the top, right under Template:Abortion, so navigation through the main template is probably enough for those.--chaser - t 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or change to category or template. I don't mind the notion of some navigational help in getting a worldwide view of abortion, but having an article like this is a self reference and is kind of superfluous to a category. a template might be nice/helpful, but that is an editorial decision. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Navigational list. All delete votes are of the "redundant with category" variety, which is always wrong per our guideline on the subject at WP:CLN. AndyJones (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've just read the guideline (thanks for ref) and I'm not sure that it applies to this particular list. This is a list of articles that are on Wikipedia - which is exactly what the existing category does - rather than a list of things. Would it not be better, for this particular case, to have a navigational template? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's exactly what the guideline says. You don't choose which is better; you can have both. AndyJones (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computers for kids[edit]

Computers for kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Non-notable organisation. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorelei (bondage model)[edit]

Lorelei (bondage model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Could not find any independent secondary reliable source that verifies notability. See WP:PORNBIO. According to WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete passes neither WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO. All the magazines listed appear to be grade-Z skin rags we don't even have articles on ("Ladies in Barefoot Bondage #1"?! Come on.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree with the above editors. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added an IMDB link, and still digging for info... SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary keep There is three years of improvement by a number of editors. This could have potential. Deleting it could kill an article by eliminating traces of it. Putting in a user space also hides it. Do not put it in my user space as I do not want porn there. This is not a case of an unknown star trying to write their own article. Is this person one of the more famous bondage stars? If so, this may have merit. Spevw (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say if the article has had "three years of improvement by a number of editors" and is still in the present condition, that's a strong indication that bringing it up to article standards is fundametally impossible due to a non-notable subject for whom no reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 70+ IMDB credits at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1104292/, well-known figure in bondage movies. Regular top-10 appearances as a model in the SIGNY awards, and several times SIGNY best website winner for her bedroombondage.com site. -- Karada (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What are some of the reliable sources that verifies her fame in bondage movies? Even though I don't think top-10 finishes in SIGNY necessarily means she is a serious nominee for a well known award, what are some reliable sources that verify the SIGNYs? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If the SIGNY nominations award can be backed, and if they can be shown as being notable, then my vote changes. Otherwise I don't see anything in the article to show notability. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:PORNBIO does not apply here. Given the number of references in IMDB there is no reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, bondage videos are a form of pornography so I don't understand why WP:PORNBIO wouldn't apply. IMDB doesn't refrain from listing pornographic movies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a BLP without one single reliable source. RMHED (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. Anyone can add anything to IMDB. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte. Whether WP:pornbio or WP:bio apply, this fails both. IMDB is not a RS for anything, so it fails verifiability and notability, and i think most would agree that listing someone as a porn actress with no sources is a serious WP:BLP violoation.Yobmod (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph School of San Jose City[edit]

St. Joseph School of San Jose City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for non-notability. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:SCHOOL. If a secondary school serves a majority of students in its region, it is generally considered notable. Ottre 05:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • How did you determine that it "serves a majority of students in its region"? According to the school's unreferenced article, it has a student body of 800. San Jose City has a population of 108,254. So what is the relevant region here? Postdlf (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This has been moved to St. Joseph School of San Jose City with the redirect deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be considered notable. If there were a school district representative of this school to which it could be merged, then that would be my recommendation. It can and should be expanded with additional information, but does not deserve to be deleted. JavierMC 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from whatever opinions we may have about the subject matter, there are no reliable sources at present. If information about it can't be documented outside of the school's own website (apparently a myspace page), then there isn't anything upon which an article can be based. Postdlf (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JavierMC 01:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since it contains a high school. Filipino schools invariably have a poor internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and time should be given for local sources to be researched and added. TerriersFan (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we could delete based on the subject's current lack of verifiable information, without prejudice to recreation at such a time such reliable sources are found. Postdlf (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CSB and the fact that high schools are inherently notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has a secondary school, although it has a pretty small student population. Starczamora (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has large student body, comparatively speaking. Ottre 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Ghauri[edit]

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

no established notability except from one minor source, reads as promotional Daviddavey (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. Should be "thorrow" anyway. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worrow[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:NEO, and may be made up. Is this speediable? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-referenced. Would not pass dictionary approval and meets no wiki criteria --Daviddavey (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF. Agree that this would not pass Wiktionary muster. MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's obviously WP:BOLLOCKS and something made up one day; additionally, I'd suggest it could be speedied because it exists primarily to mock a particular kind of lisp. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and not likely to emerge. Merging or not does not require AfD and there's no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I just closed the AfD for this movie as a WP:SNOW...while I was deleting, I found this page...it's a fan fiction novel... Smashvilletalk 03:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge whatever's left after a good cleanup to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series since it does appear to have some RS'ing. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have been covered by reliable sources, just the fact that it is fan-fiction is no criterium to delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and bury the remains at a crossroads at midnight. Much of the 'notability' for this thing is WP:ONEVENT-type stuff. Possibly, a merge as recommended by Jclemens might work. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AlexTiefling. NN fanfic. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Fanfic is essentially non-notable by definition, and the "sources" primarily discuss this as an actual official sequel, which obviously turned out not to be the case... apparently the writer was trying to build up buzz from naiive young fans thinking this was an actual 8th book to be published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the third-party-sourced information to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series and redirect. I only considerded a weak merge at first, but since this fanfic has some ONEVENT-ness surrounding its legal dispute but is still not mentioned in Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series, notability and undue weight is a concern here. – sgeureka t•c 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the details of any legal dispute from reliable sources to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. Details of the content of the book and its writer need deleting with extreme prejudice per WP:ONEVENT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comments during the previous AFD. Unlike the film which was NN, this fanfic has been referenced in major third-party sources and that pushes it past the notability/viability bar. 23skidoo (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Weak Keep. This seems like a notable enough book, at the very least notable enough for the legal disputes article because JK Rowling has at least mentioned this in public. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all the reasons I said the first time around. The subject of the article is arguably even more notable now than it was when I originally created the article almost a year ago; Lippert has even started writing a sequel. There has even been some speculation about Warner Bros. possibly even considering adapting the story to continue making money off the Harry Potter name brand after the last film version of Deathly Hallows is released—unlikely that that would ever pan out, but still, within the Harry Potter fan community at least, this is a big deal. I don't know what else I can say to convince people here; I'm just glad the article wasn't deleted the first time around. --Antodav2007 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge the remnants into "legal disputes", per Jclemens. "A big deal in the online fan community because of a bogus rumor" doesn't constitute notability. Lippert (or some of his fanbase) seems to be good at getting people to buy into nonsense; we shouldn't be enablers. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nn-band.. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N. Nomurai[edit]

N. Nomurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable band, fr33kman -s- 03:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band is notable. There have been several concerts and recordings released, with more tours and recordings on the way from Echolocation Recordings, which is why this article was posted. This is not an attempt at free publicity (that's what MySpace is for), but an opportunity for the international audiences seeking information on the band to have an explanation. Updates will be coming shortly. If there are recommendations you might suggest to the content, please share them. If you dispute the article because you feel the band is not notable, I assure you that to a vast audience nationwide, and a growing foreign fan-base, this is a quite notable project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N. nomurai (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is generally established through non-trivial attention from WP:RELIABLE published sources or reliably sourced proof of achievement. So far N. Nomurai shows neither. If this project is notable, then reliable references should already be available. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (CSD G3) by Anthony Appleyard. NAC. Cliff smith talk 05:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hexism[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. Google has no hits for "hexonomist", "tazurin", "retorious" in this context except for the religion Wikia page this is copied from. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete please. There's nothing there. Eh...is Hexis a person? Drmies (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I just put it up for speedy after a conversation I had with the author on the article's talk page.—Largo Plazo (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page seems ridiculous in my mind. There is nothing informative here that seams real what-so-ever.
  • Endorse Speedy or however the hoax gets deleted most efficiently. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Parramatta Salvation Army. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parramatta Citadel Band[edit]

Parramatta Citadel Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable Salvation Army band. No eveidence of notability supported by reliable, independent sources have been provided. It appears to be a worthy but unremarkable group. A previous speedy deletion tag has been contested and removed. Listing it here for discussion. Mattinbgn\talk 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD:G11. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Down Boundaries[edit]

Breaking Down Boundaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable organisation. No evidence from independent, reliable sources has been provided to demonstrate notability. The article reads like an promotional piece rather than an encyclopaedia article and talks more about what the organisation will do rather than the notable activities it has done. Mattinbgn\talk 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 12:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Wielder[edit]

The Dark Wielder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable comic. Google searches for the title of the comic and the author produce no meaningful hits. The username of the article creator may indicate self-promotion, also. The entire article is plot summary. Amazinglarry (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Karone The Spy, Gothica, HighMax, and Blood Romance are related pages that might also be included in this deletion listing. I'm not sure how to list multiple articles for deletion under one entry, though, so if someone could help me out I would appreciate it. Thanks. Amazinglarry (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to chase the author on a few websites, but nothing came up that would make him a notable author. The comic itself couldn't be located either. Anyone else find the same thing?
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either an outright hoax or a "Dude, I totally plan on doing this comic when I finish my social studies homework" sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, totally delete as article has no reputable third-party sources saying this is notable. --Dragonfiend (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this and the the related articles (listed in the template at the bottom of the page, which isn't actually a template, a small mercy as it means we can skip the TfD) lack of anything covering WP:N or even WP:V and no actual evidence this exists. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any good sources --Banime (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Obvious hoax - the supposed broadcast run goes through December of next year. Edward321 (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 12:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed racer pass[edit]

Speed racer pass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable neologism based on events in the film/manga series "speed racer". Ironholds (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election. MBisanz talk 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Gershuny[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unelected politician, non-notable beyond that. No reliable sources provided, none found beyond Wikipedia mirrors and official press releases. TN‑X-Man 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot find evidence that his trip to North Korea or his work as a lawyer makes him notable. Some politicians were the subject of coverage in reliable sources when they were students, but I cannot find any evidence that Gershuny was. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing Mista-X's rationale for disputing the prod, I have to point out that while Wikipedia does indeed have articles about other unelected politicians, the rule is that those politicians have to meet WP:POLITICIAN — that is, there have to be verifiable reliable sources indicating that the person in question has achieved enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I'd also love to know where Mista-X gleans that there's ever been a prior keep consensus on this article, since I can't find any record of a prior deletion discussion apart from his own prod disputation. Accordingly, redirect to one of the Marxist-Leninist Party candidates lists. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with any of the Marxist-Leninist Party candidate lists. This subject is running in the current election and sources can easily be found on mlpc.ca and the elections Canada website, for starters. Secondly there are lots of sources available just from a google search. --Mista-X (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the appropriate Marxist-Leninist Party candidate list. I'm a bit surprised the article survived as a stand-alone piece for this long. CJCurrie (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with any of the Marxist-Leninist Party candidate lists. Gershuny is an established Toronto attorney, and has worked on a number of highly political cases (including ones which have been referenced on Wikipedia). The possible lack of Google results on him does not negate his noteworthiness and mentions in other electronic and non-electronic realms of information. Frank Pais (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Winter Olympics highlights[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2006 Winter Olympics highlights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After the 1st nomination finished, there was no consensus. There have also been 0 edits since that first nomination was concluded. The page consists *entirely* of WP:OR as to what or what not is a highlight. In short, this article is simply not encyclopedic, and there is no chance of it ever becoming one. Aaronw (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would urge the closer to examine the arguments for Keep closely and ensure that they are not along the lines of "But it's a useful article" - WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of useful articles/information. They do coincide at times, but an article like this is simply untenable, and lists of medal counts and other such activities already exist in a non-OR form, like 2006 Winter Olympics medal table Aaronw (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inclusion in this article is entirely subjective, making it WP:OR. The sources may be enough to verify that these events actually happened but not that they were the "highlights". Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a linear timeline of events is useful. We do have date articles (years, year+month, etc) And we have a 2008 Summer Olympics highlights article as well. I think that all "long" events should have timelines. A linear timeline is illustrative of how events unfolded, and thus, should be encyclopedic. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see 2008 Summer Olympics highlights for an example of how it can be approved. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Highlights" is POV, and therefore the article fails WP:OR. Lugnuts (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the same reasoning as Lugnuts. Punkmorten (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherently POV, also fails WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Stifle. The concept of the article is inherently POV and WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I argued in the last AfD, the only major POV part of the article is the title. As with the 2008 one, its title can be changed and content sourced. We do not delete articles because they need clean-up, as long as they have the potential to become quality articles. If done right, this could reach the level of a featured list. Claiming we do not keep based solely on utility is a straw-man argument, as there are plenty of policy-based reasons to keep this page. Random89 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics per the 2008 precedent, and clean up per Random89. -- Jao (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 2008 list states that they are "major events". Who makes the decission on what is a major event or not? How does "major event" differ from "highlights"? Lugnuts (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why any of the articles has to mention "major events". However, I do agree that inclusion criteria can be a little problematic, but certainly not more so than in your average year article? What "events" are worthy of inclusion in 1967, for instance? (I know this argument is a little WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSy, but still, I've never heard this arbitrariness in the year articles being criticized. For days of the year, there was a proposal for criteria at Wikipedia:Days of the year.) -- Jao (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jao. Prince of Canada t | c 13:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support move and restructuring as Jao proposed. --Tone 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the name change is a good idea as it currently suggests OR and it needs some work on sourcing but that isn't reason to delete. The 2008 equivalent is a perfectly good article. Basement12 (T.C) 15:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this article serves a useful purpose, filling the gap between the main Olympic page, which has little coverage of sporting events and the individual event pages, which documents the competitions in minute detail. -- Tcncv (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No issues with a name change. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as proposed by Jao.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics and clean up, per many people above. It looks like a good timeline. If a page has a poor title, a better title is preferable to deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard as blatant advertising. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ValoreBooks.com[edit]

ValoreBooks.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not provide any sense of notability. Appears to be advertisement for web site. —G716 <T·C> 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden Attack[edit]

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

Non-notable game, no references from reliable, third-party published sources, very crufty. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion seems very euro/American culture centric. This game is quite notable. I live in S. Korea, a country where computer games are played competitively on TV, in prime time, 7 days a week. This is the 2nd most popular game in the country behind Star Craft. It's unique free distribution system requiring government data is also a noteworthy contrast to standard games. The artical has major needs of revision and new sources, it's true, but it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.72.229.46 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources, no notability, all in-universe. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete — with all due respect to our friends in the Far East, per JohnCD and per numerous other MMORPG AfDs that are similar to this one. Try to assume good faith here and not play the "centrism card." MuZemike (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This game is huge. Notability in the western markets is in question, but certainly not elsewhere so the argument of centrism is a good one to use in this case. For further notability, see: [68][69][70][71], it wasn't hard to find lots of sources on google for this regarding the games importance/notability. Also in correction to MuZemike, this is an MMOFPS, not an MMORPG. And it scale of popularity puts it far beyond most titles that already have wikipedia articles. TrackZero (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mind you of WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sorry about the MMO-confusion (although in my eyes many MMO articles, regardless if it's an FPS or RPG, face the same staggering problems). Anyways, the first source mentioned is from a blog, a self-published source which does not readily pass WP:V. The third and fourth ones don't seem to be reliable sources. However, the second one I think is OK. However, the article needs more sources like this one to establish the significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. I'll change my !vote a weak delete for now. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, notability is not determined by a perception of popularity, but by verifiable sources. (Forgot to mention that from above.) MuZemike (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete without prejudice against recreation with sources etc. At the moment it has no sources. If sources exist, now would be a good time to add them... If not we can't have an article Thinboy00 @101, i.e. 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:V, and so on. Only reason for keeping is essentially WP:BIGNUMBER, which is always a weak argument but particularly weak here, as people often create multiple accounts in MMO games, or create accounts and lose the password or just stop playing. Bottom line: the game is not presently notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep searching for "sudden attack" game brings up plenty of hits from game sites. Tag it for references, but there really is no rationale for deleting it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As noted by MuZemike, the second source is okay. And I think the Asiaone source looks quite good and doesn't seem to be self-published ([72]). Given that lots of non-RS indicate this is a highly popular game in Korea, I'm inclined to take those two sources as enough. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This article needs speedy wikify: sounds like a game guide not a Wikipedia article. And add reliable third party sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found an external link which could be a reasonable source for the game but the problem is that it is the Sudden Attack official homepage itself, and is in Korean. However, I am still listing the source right here, in hopes that it is a reasonable source: ([73]) Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I'm not an expert at wiki formatting. Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with no prejudice towards nominating again if someone can't prove once and for all that this can meet WP:N and WP:V. Definitely needs a cleanup to remove the WP:GAMECRUFT. Randomran (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Plea for Purging[edit]

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

Non notable band that comes nowhere near meeting WP:BAND. There is nothing obviously available and the original author offers nothing to help. Nuttah (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The only thing the e.l.s in this article demonstrate is that this band has a record deal and a myspace... so they exist. That's not nearly good enough. Thinboy00 @102, i.e. 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete there is some claim to notability in having toured widely, including large festivals. That said, those claims arent actually sourced, and even if true this would still be a borderline case. If someone cares enough to fix this up I might change my mind, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creighton the Cretin[edit]

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

Unremarkable comic. No wanting to start an edit war here, so here's the afd. LAAFansign review 01:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What exactly does unremarkable mean? This seems a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If this is your only reason for deletion, then I must say this a not a very good AfD nomination. Also, where did your comment on edit warring come from? If you are talking about when I removed the PROD, then per WP:Proposed deletion#Conflicts, you aren't allowed to add it back anyways. In any case, although I might support your notion that the article should be deleted (it is incredibly in-universe with no reliable sources to indicate notability), your nomination statement of "Unremarkable comic." has much to be desired. Artichoker[talk] 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me clarify, because I usually don't write a very detailed AFD. The edit warring was I didn't want to edit war with you over the deletion, no matter what type; I try to avoid that. I nominated because this an unremarkable "comic". The comic is from a fictional book. There are no real references. At the most, it should be merged with the book.--LAAFansign review 02:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak delete hard to tell. What's with that references section? Thinboy00 @104, i.e. 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to have been deleted by AfD consensus just a couple weeks ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G4) — Recreation of material deleted per AfD. I don't know what else is there to explain here. Creator should've went to DRV first instead of recreating the article. MuZemike (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - As G4, recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I said last time: "this is about a fictional cartoon created by a fictional cartoon character in a work of cartoon fiction! While the book it appears in has won awards, surely notability can't be inherited that far?" Re-creating the article in the same form with no evidence doesn't help the case for notability. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Perkins' 14[edit]

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

The result was Nom withdrawn, article has been changed significantly. (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Perkins' 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Still in "production", everyone involved is a redlink, only source is an IMDB profile that is almost word-for-word this article. Fails general notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • I'd still like to see some better sources, and "it will probably be more notable later" is not the best reason to keep, but the recent improvements seem to get it past notability guidelines. Good work, Nomination withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Delete without prejudice and return when WP:NF can, HAS beeen satisfied. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral as a future film but with an unusual angle (Internet development) that has received some but not much news attention. JJL (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only one of those that comes close to being a reliable source is Variety, and that's just a short blurb. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Fearmag is considered RS for its field. I would not go to them for an article on Global Warming... just as I would not go to the Washington Post on information on a horror film. When sourcing, one needs to go the the experts in the respective fields. However... I am only getting into the expansion and futher sourcing. Do not judge it too early.... Still under major revamping... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have done what I could in the last 90 minutes or so. Any further suggestions? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd appreciate input, either here or the article's talk page, about expanding the role the online intenet development that began the production of this film... the story concept contest... the actor's video auditions... the viewer input... the selection processes... the financing... etc. Or might that much information be best in a separate article about this process, rather than a subheading in this article? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of the After Dark Horrorfest, which tend to be sizable hits on DVD, including last year's Dark Ride by the same director. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please clarify what is meant by "which tend to be sizable hits on DVD"? Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this New York Times article, the first batch brought in $10 million between their release and when the article was written (June 07). The films were also more widely reviewed and generally got more attention (i.e. Wal-Mart prominently displays them) than they would have as individual releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and not likely to be one. TravellingCari 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot Demo[edit]

Slipknot Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this topic notable enough to have its own article, or the material should be merged into the band's article? Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is there a particular notability policy that you feel the article fails? There are a large number of Demos which have their own articles, most are not cited as well as or as comprehensive as this article. Blackngold29 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I wasn't sure but I went to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and I saw this Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Per "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable", I would argue that this is notable, because it's nto just a demo that the band created, it was the demo that was isntrumental in them recruiting Ross Robinson and then got them signed to Roadrunner records. This article is comprehensive and I believe it is notable enough.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it's notable enough. Plus I made another version on Slipkot Wikia, so you can see that one. It's good for there, as that wiki is dedicated to Slipknot (I created most of the pages there), but not here. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no case has been presented that the article fails any notability guidelines. If this article were to be merged into the band's page it would create undue weight on the subject. Blackngold29 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
grrr: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources Nergaal (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of how to read. This demo has recieved "independent coverage in reliable sources" from MTV, as well as coverage two books about the band which are atleast second party coverage. This article has better coverage and referencing, not to mention length and verifiability that the vast majority of demo articles on WP. Not to mention the band's notability in itself; if it were from a band that has had no sucess, then I wouldn't be so supporting, but Slipknot has debuted in the top five of the Billboards and many other countries' charts multiple times, we should do well to present their full history. Blackngold29 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe that Bramblestar is correct and that Nergaal has a point. I think this article is best if merged within the band's wikipage. Beano (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be disrespectful to any efforts that Bramblestar may have made in creating a Slipknot wiki, but that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. That Wiki is far from on par with Wikipedia, I am here to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Slipknot articles, to be quite frank I (and I'm sure a lot of other people too) couldn't care less about another Wiki because Wikipedia is the most popular wiki and I'm here to help improve peoples understanding of Slipknot and all related articles and Wikipedia being the most popular Wiki is the obvious choice. I agree with Blackngold too, merging this topic with the band's article will add way too much weight to the subject and this article is actually better referenced, covered and represented that many demo (and even album) articles. Plus the notability of the band themselves adds significant weight to the notability of the demo. I think this is a case of WP:IAR. REZTER TALK ø 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the wiki. It is currently very weak, so I'm just helping to expand it. That wiki is on wikia.com, and I'm just a helper on that site. And I don't find that comment you made about my efforts to be disrespectful. My first contribution to that site was the third page created there; a page for their song "Purity". Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie the Pooh (song)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The song being in most of the Winnie the Pooh series and all of the movies does not make the song notable. Schuym1 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, bother-- Delete Wow, what a dilemma... trying to describe a song without being allowed to quote from the copyrighted lyrics! Without any frame of reference, this article has never been much more than some amateur literary criticism ("The lyric gives an overview of the characters and the roles each plays in relation to Pooh himself.") The only useful information -- written by the Sherman Brothers, first featured in the 1966 Disney film "Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree" -- can be mentioned at Winnie the Pooh#Disney media. No use for this article. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete notability is not inherited. Thinboy00 @105, i.e. 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A theme song is not inherently notable merely because it attaches to a notable medium. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. At face value it is not difficult to know this song is notable as it is a theme song to a very successful franchise. It has been heard all over the world in all media (Well, ok - maybe not print media) for many years. If it were only based on worldwide exposure and identifiability I would say keep. However as these deletion threads are based on the guidelines, this is a strong keep. Guidelines say a song "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups" would be notable. Shanangai Quartet, Carly Simon, Tatiana, The Chieftains, Tommy Emmanuel and Louis Prima have all done versions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments made by Soundvisions1. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism and public intellectuals[edit]

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

This is not a notable topic. The article is merely an essay which rambles from Plato to Intelligent Design to Marx. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think it's fairly well sourced. The idea itself seems to exist and referenced by different publishers. I also find it to be an interesting connection between two concepts. Perhaps it's not sufficiently developed and needs more work, but I'd like to see it stay. Chaldor (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I see is that the sources provide information about intellectuals, but not about their relationship to journalism. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about that? Refs 4 & 6 seem to address both ideas together. I can't read ref 1, 2, 3, or 5; but I'm willing to assume good faith based on what I saw in Refs 4 & 6. Chaldor (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 4 says that journalists and intellectuals are both affected by modern celebrity culture, ref 6 says Karl Marx was both a journalist and an intellectual. I don't think that is enough to write an article. (Refs 1 and 2 are about the Ancient Greeks, ref 3 is about the Intelligent Design movement, ref 5 is a general observation about intellectuals.) Northwestgnome (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a rambling essay to me. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It rambles, but worse, it's not even half-finished. One or two historical facts are pulled from the shelves without an explanation why those are picked, and the rest forgotten. I mean, why bring up Gutenberg and not the 'invention' of the actual newspaper, or 17th and 18th century pamphlets, or computers, or the internet? This was written as a class assignment, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interesting premise, but this brief slide around history is not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – RyanCross (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neely O'Hara[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neely O'Hara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no indication of notability and no reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the most reliable sources about the character's life and history would be primary, which is fair enough. Now whether this character has enough coverage in reliable third party sources is the key point. I think they do, per these two searches [81] and [82]. RMHED (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the searches above, which are sufficient for this. DGG (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out which ones can be used? I don't really see any that provide anything non-trivial to help establish real world context. TTN (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About half way down this article there is quite a bit of discussion [83], but mainly the character is often referenced in books about Hollywood movies and sometimes in works of fiction as a kind of Hollywood actress archetype. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we currently have one reference that amounts to trivial coverage, maybe two if the book below actually focuses on the character rather than the film. Quick mentions in fiction can't really be used besides using one or two as examples to back up the initial point. This need enough coverage to warrant being a separate topic from the main works. Nothing has been shown that it is remotely possible yet. TTN (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neely is cited in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time -- the book is out of print, sadly, but there is a long chapter on "Valley of the Dolls" and the character. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like TTN, I am also leery of writing character articles from sourcing which do not mean to discuss the character but instead mean to discuss the work. I see no reason why this character is made more or less notable (in other words, is covered more or less in secondary sources) by the coverage of Valley of the Dolls (film) or Valley of the Dolls. However, there are ~12 Scholar sources that seem to cover the character, as well as 10-20 book sources (the majority of the Gbooks list isn't helpful). News sources are mainly film and television reviews, so I'm not digging through those for something meaningful. But this character itself is covered in third party sources. that is what matters. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will anyone add these sources to the article, or shall we see it back at AfD in 6 months? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – RyanCross (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munna Bhai[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its films. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary content. TTN (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I've never seen an AfD on a character where that character pulls up 700 news articles (click on the link above). Looking at the sources, most of them are about the movie itself, not the character per se. But for example [84] is certainly better than a movie review (it is a serious article asking what exactly the movie (and the main character) tapped into to be so popular. The actor was so popular in the role that he's looking at running for parliament ([85]) and when he's discussed, is in terms of this hugely popular character [86]. I'm going to go out on a very short limb and say this is notable without finding anything better. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Munnabhai is iconic (in India). Annette46 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refocus Turn this into a series overview article, like is done with Bridget Jones, and everything should be fine. – sgeureka t•c 15:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously. --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shahid • Talk2me 14:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and none likely to emerge. Redirecting or not is an editorial discussion and doesn't need AfD TravellingCari 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Malthazar[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge or redirect as appropriate to the importance of the main work--he's the major antagonist. There may be reasons to to have a separate article, but there are not against a redirect. I was about to say what i think of nominations like this when there are preferred alternatives, but anyone who has been here before knows what I think about them. I at least try to indicate in my response that i have actually looked at the article. DGG (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arthur and the Minimoys. Same for the other characters. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. GlassCobra 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Google hits aside from wiki-mirrors and non-RS. No Gnews hits (all dates archive search). No Book hits. No scholar hits. It is not a good plan for us as editors to make the decision "this is a major character" and "this is not a major character" as a functioning guideline for inclusion. I know we don't have a working compromise for WP:FICT, but it can't be one that allows us to keep an article with 0 third party sources. That gets is, unfortunately, articles like this: full of plot summary and original research. There is no other outcome. I would also appreciate it if people could keep their frustration with TTN out of this debate. We can talk about how there are alternatives to deletion but the fact that those alternatives have not been explored are not reasons to keep the articles. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the character's correct title is simply "Malthazar." Although he is stated to be an emperor in the book, he's never referred to as "Emperor Malthazar" in either the book or the film. Move? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still only gets 3 gnews hits. No books, no scholar. Webhits aren't promising. And if this isn't the title of the character, a redirect isn't helpful. Still saying delete. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Big Boss. Content remains available in history for possible merger as sources are found. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hsiao Mi[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge as a major character in the first major film by Bruce Lee. Merge perhaps rather than keep as the information is pretty much the same in the main article. At the very least redirect, as for all significant characters in any film of book we include as an article. Certainly at least all the principal characters. I ask the nom, as I have before, to find a reason why a redirect at leas tis not appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuco (The Ugly)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I cannot imagine that this could not be adequately sourced. It's one of the three major characters in one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time. There are pages upon pages of scholarship on The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. It is inconceivable that, in those pages, there are not sufficient mentions to establish notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The existing article is all plot summary and OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, one of the three primary characters of an iconic film. Per Phil Sandifer. Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A whole book exists on the movie and discusses the character to a huge extent. [87]. [88] also looks fine, if less detailed. There are tons of these books... Hobit (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle Guardian[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research and no sources cited. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hellraiser. GlassCobra 17:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see the point of a redirect for characters without an actual personal name. DGG (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article is incorrect in a few things I just corrected. For instance, the actors authored stated as playing "The guardian" are credited as a character named "derelict". In just a few minutes of checking I discovered a few major errors in this unsourced article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads (mini series)[edit]

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

Problematic article with little context and no references, created in 2006 by an editor sharing the series name. I can't find any sources that this US TV series existed. There was a crossroadsseries.com site matching the creator's name, but it expired early 2007. Searches for "Burgandi" with "Crossroads" turn up nothing useful, other searches on unique content names with a crossroads connotation have a similar lack of good results. No substantive content changes had been made since the article's creation date of 29 October 2006, except for addition of a TV stub. I cannot determine if this is an obscure series, a hoax or fictionalization of someone's life, or a failed project, but currently the article fails the core policy of verifiability with no reliable sources. Michael Devore (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems likely it was either a hoax or something that totally failed to get off the ground. A real miniseries, even an obscure one, would have at least something out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this does exist, it's poorly written, without references. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's nothing sourced, and as a result there is nothing to merge to the article. Wizardman 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demon (The Cave)[edit]

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

This fictional species does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as the major plot element in the film, the information should be combined--some of it would help explain the signifcance of the film. The name is not distinctive, and I see no need for a redirect.DGG (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there isn't any sourced information to move to a target article and the article itself is not a likely search term (due to the disambiguation title). We can't "merge and delete", so why not just delete? Protonk (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest & the Diaspora[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tempest & the Diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to assert notability. No Google News hits that mention the subject. Also, the article is written like an essay. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources covering this. The sourcing int he article only gives out a magazine name. Assuming I got the right website for the magazines, searches on keyboard magazine, electronic musician magazine, and Metal Edge magazine web sites could not find any hits for Tempest & the Diaspora or on Scottie Owens. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Nauru relations[edit]

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

Speedy was removed so bringing here. Whilst there are articles for bilateral relations, some of which are underdeveloped, we as a project have to look at whether there is a realistic opportunity for development of an article past the fact that two countries recognise each other. There are no political, military, trade, transport or cultural tie between Kosovo and Nauru on which to build an encyclopaedic article.The fact that these two countries recognise each other is noted at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and until such time as true bilateral relations emerge, this article, unfortunately, is not notable, with an a distinct possibility that it can't be built into an encyclopaedic entry. (There are other articles in this Kosovo series, such as Burkina Faso, Samoa, etc which could be looked at as well) Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 00:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then this has to be deleted as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An encyclopaedia does not need to have an article on every country pair on the planet discussing their tenuous relations. MvjsTalking 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no "relations" between Nauru and Kosovo and Metohija. What happened is the U.S. government demanded that Nauru recognize Kosovo and Metohija. --Tocino 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nauru recognises Kosovo (something noted elsewhere). As nothing else exists to indicate the notability of this fact, we need not have an article on the matter. Biruitorul Talk 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as redundant. GlassCobra 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Lloyd (motivational speaker)[edit]

Danielle Lloyd (motivational speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possibly unsourced WP:BLP or WP:OR. Not certain if this should exist. Alkwingle (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Certainly needs better sourcing and expanded references, but a googlenews search reveals plenty of newscoverage of her as a glamour model: 308 googlenews hits for "Danielle Lloyd" model[89], including quite a few with specific and detailed coverage, such as [90],[91][92][93][94], etc. Much of the coverage seems to be from the British tabloid press, but there still seems to be quite enough coverage from mainstream media for passing WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete, since, as zzuuzz notes below, there already is an article about this person, Danielle Lloyd. Everything relevant is already covered there and the page nominated here is a redundant self-promotional fork. Nsk92 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recuse myself from a formal opinion as I've blocked the nominator for disruption, but editors should be made aware that at one point this redirected to the existing article at Danielle Lloyd, until reverted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_10&oldid=1081072337"