Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 29

< December 28	December 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft redirect to Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes)/Ford/VIN Codes. Phoenix -wiki 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ford VIN codes[edit]

Successful creation of a Wikibook that incorporates this topic (and many other VIN Code topics), and this article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies EvanCarroll (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently proposed for W:AFD, however in light of new information - predominately the successful {{prod}} of all ten other VIN Code articles from Wikipedia: I feel this should be resubmitted for deletion citing consistency. The new book b:Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes) incorporates and unifies all of the jarringly unfitting, tabular, un-cited information that previously resided on wikipedia. The wikibooks's chapter navigation is a superior form of navigation for this, that wikipedia requires excessive work to achive.

Furthermore, the articles are currently forked on both projects, so one should preside over the other. There are other problems with this article, that make it a bad candidate for wikipedia. When I use the term bad candidate, I do so signifying that even if the Wikibooks article will not be seen as a replacement, this still does not have suffice requirements for inclusion into WP.

These codes do not suffice WP:N -- obviously they are useful to owners of Ford, but who has written about them. ie. there isn't one news outlet or secondary source.
Much of this is presented as original-research, WP:NOR. Ok, so someone got these codes from a Ford source, and they are right? WP Does not permit this to be the primary publication of them.
Almost no prose, highly technical and esoteric, WP:IINFO a collection of indiscriminate information.
{{deadend}}, all of the links to this article come from {{Ford vehicles}}.

And lastly, the wikibook article, b:Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes)/Ford/VIN Codes has better formatting of the content. Thanks to additions by User:Random832.

User:Corey Salzano is the obvious candidate to oppose such deletion. He will be canvassed soon after posting.

Redirect to the wikibook (if that is possible. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree fully, by deletion I meant redirection. I was thinking of the same thing. EvanCarroll (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana_(recall) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Wikibook. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikibook. It would be an inconvenience if a user searched for WP, but not WikiBook. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Wikibook. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Wikibook. -- 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Hoover[edit]

Recreated speedy; less obvious now, but I still don't beleive the notability concerns have been addressed. Additionally, the article has no independent sources. — Coren ^(talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gets instant name recognition from me. He was one of the original artists for Magic the Gathering and as he produced art for core cards like Mountain, his work will be familiar to millions. It would be easy to cite more references from gaming magazines like Scrye. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:NOTE is shown with WP:RS. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana_(recall) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. PKT (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hoover is notable. However, the article should be improved. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:BIO guideline and the WP:LIVING official policy as there are no reliable third party sources. That he is a graphic artist who worked on a popular project is not in dispute. However, the mentions he gets are on blogs rather than reliable sources. Our purpose here is to record the sum of human knowledge, not to be the judge of it. Our measurement for notability is when a reliable independent peer reviewed source has made a judgement. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some citations to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; there seems to be sufficient cites to keep.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a referenced article that asserts notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it, the problem is that there is exactly one independent source— the interview. Besides that, two self-published sources, one passing mention as being present at an event, and a database listing. How does that meet WP:BIO? — Coren ^(talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Avruchtalk 03:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is certainly notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep. DS (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but since the content has been merged, we need to preserve history. Therefore, redirect. Cool Hand Luke 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Queensland state rugby league team[edit]

I think the article could be adaquetly summarised in Queensland state rugby league team, if it isn't already. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —— Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and possibly merge into Queensland state rugby league team (for which an AfD is not required). David Mestel^(Talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd say "Merge", but it looks like someone has already done it. Lankiveil (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, if any original text has been used in the merge, you can't just delete it, because that would violate the GFDL. In any case, I can't see any reason not to keep it as a redirect, in case anyone has bookmarked or remembered the original article. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with nominator. --VS ^talk 01:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Pirate[edit]

Prod removed, so here we are. WP:MADEUP alledged cocktail. Shawis (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no concrete sources; most likely, as the nom says, MADEUP. David Mestel^(Talk) 00:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap, spam! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP. Doc Strange (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It should have deleted under {{db-spam}}--NAHID 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it has been published in one source, that's still not enough to get it past WP:NFT. It doesn't really meet any of the speedy criteria, but there's no way in hell that this is a valid article. It almost asserts non-notability, and being published in December 2007 doesn't make it notable if it was invented in May 2006.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Jerry --JForget 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Prego[edit]

It's a blog. It fails WP:WEB SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Yet another non-notable blog needs some world-wide publication using Wikipedia. Dekisugi (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete tag is on its way to the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murilo Polese[edit]

not notable, possibly fake <K F> 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Talk:Murilo Polese:

He is a writer fro the magazine. I'm planning on writing an article for the magazine too. Denis (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let me repeat my question here: How can an 18 year-old person (Murilo Polese, born Vitória, April 14, 1989) be a "teacher and physician"? <K F> 15:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah... He is a teacher for a public school and a phisycian for the Federal University of Espírito Santo.

Sorry, I don't understand this. A physician is a medical practitioner, and it takes quite a number of years after finishing school to become one. The same, as far as I know, applies to teachers. <K F> 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my bad english, he is actually a physicists. He does research in the University and teaches physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denismaco (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this, I have declined the speedy. If an editor would still like to see it deleted, please take it to AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of what, if I may ask? The claim that an 18 year-old is a researcher and teacher in physics at the Federal University of Espírito Santo? Sounds more like a freshman to me. <K F> 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if this was sourced, I don't think the subject would pass WP:BIO. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I have listed Revista Prego on AfD. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap, spam, hoax! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete, anyone? Yes, it's ageism - that an 18-year-old could not be a teacher and physician - isn't it?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kafziel ^Talk 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wu[edit]

I didn’t want to be the one to do this when there is so much else on Wikipedia to be improved, but still, here we are. This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, the last time being around 5 months ago. Now, since then Kevin Wu has had a major increase in his number of subscribers/position is the “Most Subscribed” section of YouTube, but other than that, the general problem with the article remains, in that are no reliable published secondary sources o establish notability. There are references, but all of these are either primary sources or blogs, which alone do not satisfy the notability criteria.

It has, in the first deletion discussion, been addressed that according to the notability guidelines for entertainers, if an entertainer has a large fan base or significant “cult” following, he may be considered notable. That being said, the only evidence we would have to judge if he has a “cult” following would be his number of subscribers which, although it has doubled since the last nomination, is currently just under a hundred thousand. Now, there has been and still is a good deal of doubt surrounding whether YouTube subscribers can be used as evidence of anything. Generally, the idea behind a YouTube subscription number is this: Anyone who is a significant “fan” or supporter of a person probably is subscribed to that person, but at the same time, not everyone who subscribes is a major “fan” or supporter. Even if we were to assume that he does indeed have a following of a hundred thousand people, that’s hardly a significant, or “cult” following at all. For an internet personality, he actually has relatively little demonstrable name recognition outside of YouTube, even throughout other parts of the internet, and as far as I can see it, being relatively popular on YouTube and on YouTube alone is not enough to establish notability. Calgary (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep almost 100,000 subscribers and over 4 million channel views on YouTube. If Chris Crocker is considered notable for among other things, his Leave Britney Alone video, then I think this also qualifies. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Delete, unless some reliable secondary sources can be found. I should have actually read the references a little bit closer. Sorry guys :(, happy new year :). Mr Senseless (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails the WP:BIO guideline and the WP:LIVING official policy. There are no reliable secondary sources. We don't accept blogs as sources. Two links are for subscribers only, and one is to a Wikipedia mirror. WP:BIG is not an argument for AfD or a justification for article inclusion by itself. One of the primary founding principles of Wikipedia is that Wiki is about covering existing knowledge - Wiki is not about creating that knowledge. When a reliable secondary sources writes about Kevin Wu that is the time we write an article on him - not now. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah sure. I think I went too far anyway. Iamwisesun (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain The common sense argument is too strong for me to vote "delete". I guarantee you that in every high school or junior high school in the English speaking world that has a student body comprising middle-class, wired youths, there are people who have seen, and possibly become familiar with, KevJumba's videos. Ichormosquito (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per what SilkTork has said. One big policy of verifiability to reliable sources is not provided in this article in the current form at the current time. Dekisugi (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as appearing to lack substantial, third-party coverage. If he becomes more notable in the future I won't object to a recreation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although he is immensely popular and famous on YouTube, he is not well-known outside of it...google him and all you have are blogs that talk about him, nothing published. He has no other outlets (interviews, other films) that make him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.196.76 (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced, unverifiable, WP:CRYSTAL. Kafziel ^Talk 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worth Your While[edit]

Appears to be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Completely unreferenced and contains numerous unsourced claims. As far as I am able to discern using Google, only the title has been confirmed at this point. If the article were to be trimmed back to include only what is verifiable, it would only consist of a single sentence. A single line in the Sterling Simms article would serve the same purpose. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, no WP:SOURCES, not verifiable (article admits this with the heading leaked songs), rampant crystal ballery. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of articles should be deleted from Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Kww (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. Let's finish the FIRST discussion first. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Babula[edit]

Contested speedy delete; tagged for notability concerns. Keilana_(recall) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a double listing. See below. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No improvements made to the article, no sources found, and no compelling arguments in favor of keeping it. Kafziel ^Talk 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogerurk[edit]

Game of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even an assertion of notability ("ultimate" not counting). Sadly not speedyable, due to the bizarre narrowness of A7. David Mestel^(Talk) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not bizarre at all. It's quite proper. One pair of eyes is not enough for reliably determining notability, as the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explains and as Fetch (game) (AfD discussion) attests. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, what I meant was that the fact that A7 only applies to people, organisations and web content, not that it requires no assertion of notability. The latter is quite proper. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap, hoax! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a hoax, have used it as a teacher and witnessed the use in many other school districts in Illinois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryExitedScholar (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On Wikipedia, the criterion is verifiability, not truth. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero sources found in googling. There are no news articles, only the wiki article in a web search, and no hits even through groups (usenet) which means we can't even find unreliable sources let alone reliable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too have heard of its existence and will search for some reliable sources. Keep for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubfan2522 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing Google turned up was the Wikipedia article itself. The article has virtually no information, and as such adds little to no value to the 'pedia. In the absence of any demonstration of notability or sources of any kind, I think a deletion is in order. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wynne-Thomas[edit]

Delete. No verifiable sources, breach of WP:BIO and WP:RS especially as the ACS self-publishes its members' work; article reads like he is a dedicated committeeman (as member of a group, not notable) who gets his work published by his group; nothing to say that his work has any real importance or notability; nothing to conclude that ACS should be exempted from WP:RS's publication requirements BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick bit of research throws up enough mentions of the guy to give him some degree of notability. He has published a variety of books (by various publishers, including Hodder & Staunton, as shown by the Amazon reference), is cited by BBC Sport as a cricket historian, and was a founding member and significant part of ACS. He meets several of the criteria in WP:Bio. It's a curious nomination by BlackJack, given that he created the article in 2005 and has worked on it several times over the last two years. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A fair point but I only introduced the article as a stub based on what someone else told me (never a good basis) and it has not really developed. I have doubts about its compliance with WP:RS in particular but you have done some useful research and things are looking better for the article now.

Delete We cannot have articles for all cricket-related stuff. Cricket is only popular in some parts of the World. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By that logic nearly all articles in Wikipedia would have to go. Anything to do with sport, culture, religion and many other subject areas are "only popular in some parts of the World". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea Masterpiece 2000. Obviously, by the same token, all the articles on American Football, Ice Hockey and Baseball would have to go first as cricket is played and watched by far more people than these minority sports. I daresay Sachin Tendulkar is a bit more famous than most Governors of Connecticut too, so I look forward to your AfD nominations of all those articles. As this is the English language wikipedia, and given cricket's history in the English speaking world, I think it's a notable subject, heck even some sociologists have written about it. Nick mallory (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I recommended deletion, I would rather that Masterpiece2000 withdrew his vote, quite frankly. If we are going to vote then lets vote on the basis of sound, valid and logical reasons. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs tidying and verifying where indicated, with proper references. But this chap has been central to efforts to collate and organise cricket stats in the past 35 years and his publishing credits include learned works and populist books from mainstream publishers. Johnlp (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is no good just saying that he has done this and done that. That was the mistake I made originally (see above). The bottom line here is that the article must comply with WP:RS in particular. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been regularly cited in the press as an expert [1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you delete all references to the ACS you are still left with his authorship of some substantial cricket histories and statistical works, notably the Hamlyn A-Z of Cricket Records and his biography of Arthur Shrewsbury. A search on his name at Amazon UK throws up 43 matches, though no doubt some are different editions of the same book. Surely belonging to the ACS does not automatically make a person non-notable?! JH (talk page) 14:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A definite keep. Tintin 02:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael Babula[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 as not notable if it was even true, which it isn't so per WP:CSD#G1 as well. Pedro : Chat 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Motors Diet[edit]

Absolutely no notability as far as I can see. No sources or references quoted. No substantive edits other than by the author. CultureDrone (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication whatsoever to verify that any of this is indeed GM policy. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I considered a merge, as suggested by some commenters, but frankly, it's impossible to tell what information in the article is reliable, due to multiple anonymous editors doing things like changing the name of the forum's creator. Recommend that if someone is genuinely keen, they start a fresh (sourced) section in Tippmann. --Stormie (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tippmann Forum[edit]

It's now a full year that this has been floating around with no attempt made to address the notability concerns raised at the time (see the talk page). While a lot of work seems to have gone into this, I really can't see how it warrants keeping as anything other than a one-paragraph mention on Tippmann; this seems to be the very model of an acorn of an unsourced stub that's been allowed to grow into a mighty oak of original research with a dash of how-to guide and social networking on the side. However, in light of the talkpage debate, the alleged 35,000 members, and most significantly the amount of work that's gone into it by multiple editors who don't appear to have seen anything wrong with it, I don't want to just shove this into the mulcher without a proper debate. Anyone who thinks this is salvageable, speak now... — iridescent 20:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I put a speedy tag on the article (A7 web), but it was removed.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Tippmann after severe trimming. It probably merits a mention in a parent article, but with no reliable sources to establish notability, it can't stand on its own. -- Whpq (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, trivial in the extreme! But it got me looking at the other trivial forum articles. This, and many of the others fail WP:WEB. Use this AfD as a test, and if consensus is that this forum is not notable, then start listing some of the others. I would agree with Whpq that a merge to Tippmann#Forum is the most appropriate action. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Ravenswing 09:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adelphi Hotel[edit]

Fails to establish context (A1), provide content (A3), or to establish notability (A7) Coldmachine^Talk 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britannia Hotels. _The_ Adelphi Hotel is the one in Liverpool, for which "Britannia Hotels" is the correct article. The Melbourne hotel may be genuine, but there are no sources to establish its notability. The Leeds hotel, as described, sounds very much like a hoax to me - "the highest score on ice"? Tevildo (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Establishes context on first line (hotel in Sheffield). Notability is also established as it is the birthplace of both the city's professional football clubs and Yorkshire CCC. It was a major hotel in Sheffield and often central to events on the local sporting scene. josh (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it asserts significant notability. Can good proof be found? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Notability is asserted, established, contextualized. Grammar could do with clean-up. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Not really sure where we should go on this one. We now have adequate sources for the existence of the Sheffield hotel (sincerest apologies for my earlier mistake), but does the mere fact that it was the venue for an important meeting make it notable in its own right? We also have the Liverpool hotel (which, I think, most people will be looking for under "Adelphi Hotel", if only because of the TV series) and the Melbourne hotel (which, apparently, won an architectural award) to take into account; there are no published notability criteria for buildings, which doesn't help. At the very least, we're going to need some sort of disambiguation arrangement if the article is kept. Tevildo (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is acceptable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article shows clear notability. I have added a disambiguation headnote for the Liverpool Adelphi. If other Adelphis are to have articles then this article can be moved to Adelphi Hotel (Sheffield) and a disambiguation page can be created. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelphi Hotel (Sheffield) as Liverpool Adelphi more notable than this, agreeing with User:Tevildo. MikeHobday (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Adelphi Hotel (Sheffield). Change Adelphi Hotel into a redirect to Adelphi#Other uses. It appears clear from the discussion that there is no primary use for the name so it should redirect to the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, but under the condition that it is substantially rewritten to conform to WP:MOS within a reasonable span of time. Sandstein (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation[edit]

What on earth is this? Certainly, its prose is coherent and many of its assertions have references, but it appears not to be an especially encyclopedic topic, at least in current form. It sounds a lot more like a policy analysis than an encyclopedia article. Thus, per WP:NOT and perhaps WP:COATRACK, it should be deleted, and we should also investigate the other 9 articles linked at the top. Exhaustively chronicling every move the CIA makes seems outside our scope. Biruitorul (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a work in progress to document what actual activities have taken place, in support of policies that have been ordered by Congress and the White House, as opposed to the model of an organization dedicated to nothing but regime change. You mention that the prose is coherent and there is sourcing, and indeed there may be superfluous detail. Finding that excessive detail would seem the purpose of consensus-based editing.

There is certainly a balance of detail to be struck, but these articles are a starting point to finding NPOV over what had been, in the single extremely long article, to have large numbers of unsourced allegations about covert action. This is not an attempt to cover everything the Agency has done, but, in part, these are descriptions of Congressional requirements for production of documents.

Why not consider discussing the subject, by assuming good faith, rather than immediately calling for deletion? I am certainly open to constructive criticism, but the previous single article had distinct difficulties I was attempting to balance. In addition, an Intelligence task force has been established within the Military History project, and these things certainly are intended to get input.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, and I agree that not all the information here is throwaway material. However, articles must adhere to WP:SYN and WP:NOR, and this appears to cross those lines. Before having a Wikipedia article on a subject, we must also document its third-party existence as a discrete subject of investigation rather than as something an editor (you, in this case) cobbled together from disparate sources to create a new entity. No evidence has been adduced demonstrating that to be the case. Biruitorul (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it in a nutshell, for me. No discrete subject. There's a lot of no-doubt useful stuff here, which may need to be merged into various articles. But as the CIA needs to be active and watchful on just about everything, that doesn't mean we should be carving the world into orange-slice-like survey articles commenting on a vast range of topics because they are ""CIA Activities" -- does it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd article. Far as I can figure out -- this is a personal essay by the author about various WMD and weapons systems, all grouped together into one grab-bag of an article, because, he feels, they are within the purview of the CIA? And he has created other essay-articles grouping other topics according to the same rationale? As this one goes, so must all of Mr. Berkowitz's essays go, but I'm not ready to vote, at least not yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as somebody's personal essay and per WP:LIST, WP:SOAP, and WP:SYNTH. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What do you want to do, merge it into CIA, which would then have to be split again? This is notable (very), and if we had similar information on what the KGB/FSB had been up to, we'd be adding it. This is not a grab-bag of info, this is what the CIA can be proven to having been doing about said subject. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite the case, is it? This tells us the CIA's forecasts on the Indian nuclear programme; this talks about Iran and bio/chem weapons, and so on. Why, taken together, should such disparate bits of information be of encyclopedic value? By all means, go to the apposite articles and write, "CIA analyses predict that...", but a list of CIA forecasts (essentially what this is) is not especially fitting as an article subject. Biruitorul (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, if these articles do get retained, "CIA Forecasts on..." would be a much more comprehensible title. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is confusing because of the bad organization and difficult writing. I was originally going to say "delete" but as I look into it (a) the topics of WMD, proliferation and arms control all do seem to cohere pretty well, and CIA activities in regard to each would seem to cohere a bit more; if they don't cohere, the solution is to break the article up, not delete; (b) the topic is a worthy one for Wikipedia -- obviously; (c) the article is poorly put together in terms of organization and Wikipedia style, but those are fixable and not reasons to delete; either the originator of the article or someone else can fix it. Noroton (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these POV forks (CIA Activities by ...). Wikipedia is not a directory of the CIA, nor of criticism of the CIA. Documenting a particular agency at this level really is something that should be done at Wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell, this is a somewhat new editor who was doing the hard task of splitting the massive CIA article. I'm gonna take a swing through and try shine up the presentation and some of the sourcing issues, maybe even a rename of some articles, but I'd say the topic of the CIA being involved in arms control activities (think Soviet war in afghanistan for a top-of-the-head idea) are notable enough. Mbisanz (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me just clarify I think Mr Berkowitz is acting in more than good faith by creating this series of articles, which he split off the main CIA article that was getting truly out of hand until he stepped in. However, the exhaustive level of detail, the lack of focus, the tone and the lack of third-party notability as stand-alone subjects is what concerns me and led me to call for deletion. Biruitorul (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This AfD just made me bump this issue up on my todo list, no biggie. I've started working with Mr. Berkowitz to tailor his contributions to people who might not know as much as he does about the field. I've finished the first two big sections of this article, and will begin making my way through the other 9 over the following weeks. Expect an FYI sometime around Spring to check on my work. Mbisanz (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a hard one. On one hand, this is a very worthwhile topic for an article and it cites what look like reliable sources. On the other hand the article as it currently stands is a mess and needs a very substancial re-write - at present it lacks context and the structure is confusing. As this is a new article on a worthwhile topic I think that it should be given the benefit of the doubt but be tagged as needing a re-write and be refered to the relevant wikiprojects. If it's still a mess in a month or so then deletion and starting from scratch might be the best option. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with many of the foregoing statements on both sides -- the article is well-referenced and contains much useful information that should be available on Wikipedia even though it would be too much detail for the main CIA article; but the article is disjointed and needs reorganization and considerable rewriting. The balance of these pros and cons comes out to "keep" and let it be improved. Contrary to Biruitorul's argument, I don't consider "exhaustive level of detail" to be a reason to delete an article -- quite the opposite. One suggestion that comes to my mind is to create articles on some of the particular governmental offices mentioned, such as the Office of Counterproliferation Initiatives in the State Department and the National Counterproliferation Center in the CIA itself. Such articles could describe the history, structure, and function of the named entity. As one urgent rewriting task, the section on "Clandestine production" is taken verbatim from the cited source. Better cited than uncited, of course, but that doesn't excuse the copyvio, nor the use of "last week" and "this page" from a 1997 Wall Street Journal article, nor the POV of "as with all its arms control agreements, Moscow has been banking on the technicality and the camouflage." JamesMLane t c 08:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an acceptable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but the topic is notable and it was split off of the main CIA article. Keep, tag, and clean up. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per debate and fixing up of the article by other editors. No point continuing this thread. Pedro : Chat 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Japan[edit]

WP:NOT a travel guide. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to WikiTravel, but also keep in mind that numerous "Tourism in..." articles exist, so we should perhaps consider a holistic approach and look toward eliminating or reforming all of them. Biruitorul (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (speak) 20:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a travel guide. There's nothing here from which I could plan my vacation with. Quoting from WP:NOT#TRAVELGUIDE:An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to re-create content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, popular eating guides, gazeteers, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. This article hews very closely to this guideline of sticking to the high-level details. Keep. —Quasirandom (speak) 20:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, and what's your justification for wanting to delete a whole series? Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I restubbed the article [2] with a view towards making it into a history of the tourism industry in Japan, which is perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia. I added one very good source for this which I found by Google Books; surely we'll find others if we spend more than 5 minutes looking. cab (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I agree strongly with the nominator's contention that the initial travel guide-style version of the article was inappropriate for Wikipedia; however, we fix such problems by editing, not by deletion. cab (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Japan's tourism is notable. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is not a travel guide. It's a perfectly legitimate encyclopedic article about tourism in Japan.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per HisSpaceResearch. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Pacheco Calvente[edit]

Article was nominated for deletion on 2004 (see talk page). The subject does not meet Wikiedpai's notability criteria since there has not been "significant coverage in reliable sources". Joelito (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further discussion establishes notability. There are zero english-language news sources in lexis about her, and only two spanish-language articles (which were published on Jan 3 and 5, 2004). She was the victim of a random tragedy but is not notable by wikipedia standards. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO and WP:NOT#News GalaxyGuy (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. —Encephalon 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Dhartung Computerjoe 's talk 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snowball? Computerjoe 's talk 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAHID 14:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Tokyo[edit]

WP:NOT a travel guide. I imagine that this only duplicates content existing elsewhere, but maybe some of it could be moved to Festivals in Tokyo, for instance Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (speak) 20:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't much of a travel guide. Quoting from WP:NOT#TRAVELGUIDE:An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to re-create content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, popular eating guides, gazeteers, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. This article hews very closely to this guideline of sticking to the high-level details, enough so I couldn't plan my vacation with it. Keep. —Quasirandom (speak) 20:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't much of a travel guide. Competence -- or lack thereof -- isn't the issue, intent is: a listing of tourist spots in Tokyo, ergo it's a travel guide. --Calton | Talk 13:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Quasirandom. Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Quasirandom. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Nominator seems not to fully understand what is meant by Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly good article, per HisSpaceResearch et al. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You imagine this article duplicates content existing elsewhere? As others have stated above, even if you had bothered to check this claim, this is the sort of problem that is solved by editing, not deletion. --Canley (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the same reasons as the Tourism in Japan AfD discussion above. Perfectly legitimate article, that is not a travel guide, this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not a travel guide, and being a travel guide is the only reason the nominator gave for deletion. Fg2 —Preceding comment was added at 05:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Well, this acticle is important. Why should it be deleted? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikikpedia ISN'T a travel guide, which this article actually is? --Calton | Talk 13:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start again. As it stands, it IS blatantly a travel guide and NOT an article about tourism in Tokyo. --Calton | Talk 13:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The argument for deletion is not that the subject doesn't belong, but that the article as it currently stands is in poor quality. This isn't a valid argument for deletion. We just need to improve the article. matt91486 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Behr[edit]

A source noting Kristina Behr's role as a reporter has been cited. If you want to take the song reference away, fine, but I would hope you won't delete the entire entry. Christopherbailey (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources for that Kristina Behr is a reporter. Even if there is a reporter named Kristina Behr, there must be proof that she is the Kristina from the song. BrainOnSka (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Keasbey Nights. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe that being a reporter is enough of a notability claim for WP, and the second section is impossible to verify. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a WP:COATRACK just to mention the song. No notability apparent or demonstrated. --Dhartung | Talk 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Allen[edit]

(contested prod) College football player that hasn't received significant (if any) media coverage. Fails WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He saved a game with a recovered onside kick (which did recieve media coverage), has two key interceptions, and will be the starting safety next season. The article will be recreated by me once the season begins anyways. John (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem sufficiently notable, unless I'm missing something. If his career picks up next season, that would be the time to have an article on him.--Michig (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for amateur athletes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for college athletes if he becomes notable next year then he can have an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Next year if he gets coverage, and his career picks up. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable guy. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject currently unsuited for encyclopedia entry. —Encephalon 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he a very good college player. If you delete him you might as well delete every athlete from college sports on here. --Cra sh U nderride 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, maybe someday he will be and that would be the time for him to have an article.OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fdtv[edit]

This article is crap, because it fails to explain precisely and clearly what its subject matter is in the way that all Wikipedia articles should begin. There's a claim to notability but I can't verify it. There are sources but I'm not sure if they're reliable. Was previously deleted at the title FDTV. I don't know what to do with this - AfD is not cleanup, but I have serious notability doubts here too. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability established, and Amazon.com is not an independent source (and neither are any of the other links provided.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no established notability, no sources, vanity page as far as I can tell. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Crooks[edit]

Not notable yet, biggest claim to notability is guest vocals on a couple Avenged Sevenfold songs and a guest spot in a few Big & Rich tours. Only links are official site and MySpace; no reliable sources could be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~Neutral. This suggests sufficient notability from tours/performances.--Michig (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC) updated to neutral.--Michig (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V ~~and WP:MUSIC~~. Purevolume.com is not reliable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not reliable, but it asserts notability. The live performances should be verifiable.--Michig (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Still fails WP:V, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much in the way of independent coverage, however, so maybe this should go until her Atlantic Records album comes out, when no doubt the major-label promotion machine will generate plenty of coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:N seems to be met here, if only just. I think that she is barely notable. --Shark face 217 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not really notable. Madman (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This entry satisfies WP:BIO. NAHID 15:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Baird (footballer)[edit]

It is apparent that the article was written by the subject. It is about a footballer that appears to have failed to make the grade at any club he has joined. There is no element of notability about this subject at all, unless the mere fact of being a pro-sportsman makes you notable which is palpably ridiculous. Paste (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If he actually played for the first team at Alloa Athletic or Stenhousemuir F. C., he _does_ pass WP:BIO ("Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league"), although I agree that the article needs a rewrite. However, it's quite possible he was only in the reserves - in default of references proving otherwise, I see no reason for the article not to be deleted. Tevildo (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, neither of those teams plays in a fully professional league.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I was tending towards delete, as I could find no evidence that he had played first team football in Scotland, but the league he plays in in Trinidad & Tobago[3] appears to be professional, and he has played first team football there, so he passes WP:BIO. The information in the article all appears to be true - if the result is Keep, I'll be happy to add refs.--Michig (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, though perhaps this version is about as long as it will ever get. Whitstable (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is this doing at AfD? He has played in a fully professional league, so flies through WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep T&T's top division appears to be professional, so he meets WP:BIO criteria (has played in a fully-professional league). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable to me.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, T&T league defiently notable. Sunder land 06 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable enough. --Shark face 217 22:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 07:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, Baird does pass WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sims 2 Machinima Series[edit]

so far as I have checked there is only one (maybe two) sims machina products that are notable. This list seems like (intented to be or not) its just a coatrack to hang less than notable machinima series on. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Listcruft Doc Strange (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think even the really notable one isn't making them anymore.--Crossmr (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this fit the Speedy delete criteria for complete lack of content and context? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Warrior's Refuge[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 Keep. A current Amazon bestseller in several categories is persuasive even beyond the consensus. Non-admin closure. RGTraynor 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in here to suggest notability for this. The only source is the Amazon page. 80% of the article is a plot summary. I say delete unless notability can be proven through reliable sources. Metros (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I ask you to consider retiring this deletion request for a month or so? From what the article says, the manga was released on December 26, and you nominated it on December 29. Some more time should be given to estabilish if it meets the criteria.--Aldux (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the same vein, couldn't the article wait to be created until a month from now if it does eventually meet the criteria? Metros (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warriors (novel series), trim and tidy up. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Give it some time! The creator of the article obviously didn't give much thought in, but with a little will stop talking about deleting it and start working! You can't expect all articles to be perfect in less than a week. IceUnshattered (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warriors (novel series) Also, I nominated all the other articles on warriors books - I'd like to point out that even though the book was recently released, none of the other articles meet WP:FICT and I don't think this article ever will. Corvus coronoides _talk 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a best-seller on Amazon. Catchpole (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify and keep Give it some time. Jtrainor (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "based on a best-selling book series" seems to assert notability. The book just came out, so give it more time to let this article grow. Time will tell whether it meets WP:FICT. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book is in top 500 at Amazon, book before it is in top 200. I'm not finding reliable reviews, but I don't see how they can't be out there. Hobit (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hbdragon88 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior's Return[edit]

This was previously deleted as an expired prod. It was recreated today and tagged as speedy deletion as little or no context. I'm bringing this here since, A. there is some context here and B. it was once deleted through prod. In my opinion, there is no telling if this book will or will not be notable. There is nothing known about it really except a small plot overview, a conjecture as to who might be in the book, and a possible release date 5 months from now. I say delete now with no prejudice to recreation in the future when notability is gained. Metros (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it because there is some significance as it is the next book in a bestselling series. Shapiros10 (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of that presented through reliable sources in this article. Metros (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got my info from the Warrior's Refuge page and the Warriors (Novel Series) page. Shapiros10 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - You do have to click through to the previous books in the series, to learn that it's a manga adaptation (or sorta sequel, it's hard to tell) of a best-selling series of fantasy novels. Though the articles on the series itself are also a little thin on actual sales information, that much can be gleaned without leaving Wikipedia. ——Quasirandom (speak) 18:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a separate arm of a best selling series, so i would still think that counts. Shapiros10 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, it's a future release, and I don't believe each title in the series is worthy of an article anyway. PKT (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The way these books are selling, every book deserves a page. Shapiros10 (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete for now. If the manga proves itself notable, it can easily be recreated (and there will be sources by then).--Aldux (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-wiki sources? Because my info was from Wikipedia. Shapiros10 (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it has to be non-wiki sources. See this guideline which states that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and information must be found independent of wikis to be reliable. Metros (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if the info on Wikipedia that I used was originally from a non-wiki source? Shapiros10 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warriors (novel series). Build it and they will come. Stubs look neglected. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Corvus coronoides _talk 03:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warriors (novel series), has precious little info currently and I can't see it getting any more until published. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No!!! Do Not delete this page you melonheads!!!! I've talked to the person who drew the pictures in it!!! (JLBarry) He comfirms this book is Real!!!

~Fp of W&W~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.129.13 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per criterion A7. Keilana_(recall) 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Clift[edit]

Non-notable student who was once in a band (No.1 Defender - also up for deletion) and has made a (non-notable) movie. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per criterion A7. Keilana_(recall) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.1 Defender[edit]

Non-notable band. Only incoming link is for Andy Clift (article also nom. for deletion) who seems to be some non-notable student. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been a speedy delete A7. I tagged the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia scots guards[edit]

Musical group founded just this year. No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC; gsearch only comes up with band's own web site. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the current state the article fails to show notability. Pundit|utter 17:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Weak delete. I do see some possible (very) minor notability (WP:MUSIC, see 6 7.), but definitely unverified and unreferenced. Also, in obvious breach of WP:COI. ~~Peasantwarrior (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)~~ Peasantwarrior (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this type of band would have great difficulty in meeting WP:BAND because it's not likely that they would get a recording contract or do a national tour, but I can't think that there's much notability here. I agree with Peasantwarrior that there is the possibility of minor notability as s/he referenced, but nothing palpable. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently fails WP:MUSIC (even if it meets criterion #7, it still isn't verified) -FrankTobia (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect to Remote viewing or Stargate Project is possible. Sandstein (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Price (remote viewer)[edit]

There are virtually no sources on this person, most of it has been tagged as unsourced since August, we don't even know when he was born, all we know is that he once took part in a project that is the focus of some determined POV-pushing. A smerge and redirect would be OK, but I see no support for an independent article on someone where the only facts are in relation to his participation in a not terribly important (and rather implausible) project on which we already have an article. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What more is there to say? I would suggest deleting the "remote viewing" template as well. Temperal^{talk and matrix?} 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure Pat Price could see that coming. Nick mallory (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Chicago Tribune article does exist. (James Coates. "The CIA's crystal ball". Chicago Tribune. August 13, 1977. W8.) However, it doesn't mention Price's name. Zagalejo^^^ 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly smerge, but I can't find anything tying him to a specific remote viewing project). Perhaps someone could "remotely view" his memoires? 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
Keep/Merge All issues have now been addressed. The page now complies with all wiki-regs. The individual was a member of a notable project which has verifiability in both history and popular culture. - perfectblue (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, the article is essentially unchanged, and there are no sources other than in respect of participation in a project. Notability is not inherited. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entry remains largely unchanged because it did not need changing, only sourcing. This is a stub, a single source will do. As for notability, the man made claims which are notable for their extraordinary nature and because the CIA took them seriously, at least for a while. He's part of the popular culture surrounding remote viewing. You might not have heard of him, put Price is famous/infamous as being the man who drew those sketches of cranes/lifting gantries that were supposed to be in Soviet facilities. How about I just list books that discuss him or his work. How many do you need to assert notability in popular culture/conspiracy beliefs?

Richelson Jeffrey T: The Wizards of Langley: Inside the Cia's Directorate of Science and Technology
Mandelbaum W. Adam: The Psychic Battlefield: A History of the Military-Occult Complex
Picknett Lynn , Prince Clive: The Stargate Conspiracy
Chalker Bill: Hair of the Alien: DNA and Other Forensic Evidence of Alien Abductions
Constantine Alex: Psychic Dictatorship in the USA

perfectblue (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendum: I have amended the entry to state his notability. This man is probably one of the best known figures in Cold War era remote viewing. His notability is conferred through multiple references to him by both believers who think that he really did these things and debunkers who use his claims as reason for remote viewing being bunk. He played a notable part in a notable part of cold war history. See added sources on the page as evidence of this.

I also would like to note that plausibility has never been a Wikipedia criteria. It's perfectly permissible to have a page about something that turned out to be a complete and utter hoax, or the ramblings of a lunatic. It's notability that counts and the fact that the CIA took him seriously and so many people are still discussing whether he was real/fake grant him this in full. Does anybody remember those sketches of gantries/cranes that get trotted out whenever believers/skeptics talk about remote viewing? Well, it was Price who drew them. Given the number of documentaries that they appear in, he's certainly notable. - perfectblue (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am rather concerned about the comments being made on this page.

Guy: You're comments about Project Stargate are treading on WP:AFG, what may or may not have happened there has no bearing on these proceedings and cold be construed as an attempt to color people against this page by association. It is inappropriate to make such remarks on an AFD and such reasoning is not supported under current AFD policy. Temperal: Per norm is not a Wikipedia policy. What, exactly, is your reasoning? Masterpiece2000: There is no Wikipedia policy by that name, plus Wikipedia regs permit hoaxes, frauds and popular myths. Even if this man is a complete fraud and a fake, he still has notability which gives allows him to have a page here.

perfectblue (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LAWYER. Lack of sources, lack of evidence of any coverage independent of the project, WP:BLP1E sets the standard for what to do about "biographies" that are centred on a single event. Merge and redirect is the usual route in such cases on Wikipedia these days, but the material that bears merging is already in the likely target article. Your supposed fixes do not, in fact, address the fundamental problem, which is that we don't even have sources for such trivial information as DOB. What we have in the article as you amended it is: one quote. And actually the entire basis for the article always was, pretty much, one quote. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lawyer does not apply in this case as I am commenting on participation in the AFD process, not looking for loopholes in the process. As it stands this AFD risks being brushed over.

An AFD is a debate, not a vote and the above user's risk having their views discounted. for example, Masterpiece2000 expresses a dislike for the entry, but gives no reasons for its deletion. An admin could legitimately take this as being an "I don't like it" argument, and ignore it for the purposes of the debate. Similarly Temperal does not offer any actual reasons of opinion or of policy. How is an admin meant to determine anything from Per Norm?. - perfectblue (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins will be well aware that "per nom" means an endorsement of the deletion rationale advanced by the nominator. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could drop either a note on their talk page and ask them to clarify or expand on their rationales, I am sure they won't mind. — BillC ^talk 11:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stargate Project. There's nothing here, per WP:BIO1E. — BillC ^talk 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okinawa Coral[edit]

This article is yet another pov fork of Coral calcium, started without any discussion. The entire article is dubious at this point, poorly referenced, with unverifiable if not inaccurate claims. Editors are already edit-warring over tags in the article. Ronz (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coral Calcium Claims and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#User:Magnonimous.2F24.36.201.161 --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very close to being spam. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with User:Blanchardb, this is close to being spam and is almost certainly a WP:COATRACK for a commercial "nutraceutical" of some dubious sort. I would dislike seeing Wikipedia adding verisimilitude to an otherwise unconvincing narrative of that sort. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap, spam, delete! Masterpiece2000 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - please note that two of the creators, Jerome709 (talk · contribs) and Magnonimous (talk · contribs) have exposed themselves as sock puppets and I'd bet eleventy billion dollars that MoonLightGlory (talk · contribs) is too. --B (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , snake-spam-oil (Yummy!), seems to exist only to bolster somebody's dubious product. Ronabop (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Williams (footballer)[edit]

This article was deleted just yesterday after a PROD. The player's situation has not changed since then, and the current article makes no decent claim for this player's notability. – Pee Jay 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Subject has played in a professional league, which would seem to lend him notability. However, it is difficult to tell from the current version of the article. If no one can add some more info in a few weeks, nominate it again. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you cite where you learned that he had played in a professional league? As far as I am aware, he has been at Middlesbrough for his whole career, and he hasn't made an appearance for them. – PeeJay 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks as though Middlesbrough is professional, and has been since 1889. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For fuck's sake, why don't people understand that merely being on the books of a professional club does not qualify someone as notable? If he hasn't played a match for Boro, which he hasn't, then he's not notable. – PeeJay 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please remain civil. I stand by my call. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You stand by your call even though you've been proved wrong? We know Middlesborough is a professional club, the point is lots of players may be on a team's books but they actually have to play for the first team to become notable on Wikipedia. Nick mallory (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I apologise for my use of profanity, Lifebaka. My outburst was not specifically directed at you. It's just that this article was deleted less than 24 hours ago, and all of a sudden it's been recreated by some pillock who doesn't understand the notability guidelines. Now, I understand you are not a regular contributor to football-related articles. I, however, am, and so you'd think I'd know a thing or two about such articles. Your "weak keep" vote is founded on misguided reasoning, and is not inkeeping with the notability guidelines pertaining to football-related articles. – Pee Jay 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Lifebaka states "Subject has played in a professional league", however this is not true, the subject has never played in an actual first-team match for Middlesbrough, in fact he isn't even part of the first-team sqaud as at the current date. Therefore delete until such time as he makes an actual first-team appearance for Boro or any other club..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's played in the reserves and signed a pro contract in july[4] but hasn't played for the first team yet. 81.77.136.231 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my understanding is that footballers playing for lower level squads are generally not notable until they play in the first-team squad, similar to how a baseball player playing for a minor league affiliate of say the New York Yankees wouldn't be notable until he actually plays in a regular season game with the Yankees. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played in a professional league. His games have been limited to Boro reserves hence fails WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO BanRay 16:38, 31 December 2007 (U
rhys was at a club in its academy when a junior in perth australia, that club is called joondalup city and they play in the west australian professional league 1, he definitely started games for them in the first team and even though his status at the time may not have been professional he played games with them, regards timmo
- Any chance of some documentary evidence of that? Wikipedia articles are based on verifiability, not the truth. If you can verify that Williams played for a professional team, then of course the article should stay. – Pee Jay 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and failure of WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This unofficial but very detailed West Australian soccer site [5] has the 15-year-old Williams playing in Round 22 of the Football West State League Premier Division for ECU Joondalup on 11.9.2004. It confirms this is the same person as the Middlesbrough Williams [6] on 7.2.2007. This is a second-level league in Australia, below the A-League. As it appears he did play first-team football in this league, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself could confirm whether or not it is a professional league. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prody Parrot[edit]

No assertion of notability, but this is outside the narrow scope of WP:CSD#A7. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references for verification, either. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I am not certain of notability, although some time ago it was discussed and commended. If somebody really wanted and expanded the article, I'd vote to keep - in the current state it is a rather poor stub, perhaps unworthy development. Pundit|utter 18:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no assertion of notability. -- The Anome (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guess i should have checked first... --FadedSoul (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Pundit.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kikokushijo Academy. --Stormie (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.A.T.E.[edit]

Non-notable standardized test Ebenacea (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kikokushijo Academy, lack of substantial content, and no independent sources. Addhoc (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, agree with Addhoc - seeing as the Academy article already seems to have all this information in it anyway. alex.muller (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with Addhoc. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). D.M.N. (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big White Taxi Service[edit]

Highly POV article, contains uncited and possibly libellous allegations against police. The article is about a made-up term used on a discussion forum. Contested prod. Lurker (said · done) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coatrack for the forum joke. Once this content is pruned, no claim to notability or references. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete A nothing article. It's about a phrase and a forum. The phrase isn't worthy of inclusion while the forum is a forum like any other. If this article is kept, then it needs restructuring and will be end up as

The Big White Taxi Service is an online community by London Ambulance Service staff in the United Kingdom during 1999

And that will be that, never to be expanded upon. Whitstable (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Significant social institution. At least one source. DGG (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is used across the UK by emergency services to describe the use of ambulances by non-emergency patients who do not need the use of ambulance.
Weak delete per Whitestable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is evidently of interest to users of the forum. Seems to have been edited to remove libellous content.

Keep notability is apparent, but remove the POV sections and add more sources. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned, clean up has been carried out to remove any potential libel. Was a first attempt wiki entry, accepted some naiveity is apparent looking at initial entries. There are many mentions of the term 'big white taxi service' in print and in constant use amongst health and emergency service workers and the web forums popularity in the uk and abroad is surely enough to include the current article. Littlebaron (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - could be merged later - content is verified by a secondary source, in addition to primary sources, and libel has been removed. Addhoc (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Emergency_medical_services_in_the_United_Kingdom#Big_White_Taxi_Service. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 18:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Utterly fails the tests in WP:N - essentially a neologism. Beware oddity in search results from Google: a search for "The Big White Taxi Service" produces a headline of 1,480 results - this Google then resolves to just 22! Springnuts (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion A7. Keilana_(recall) 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Johnson, Dancer[edit]

Properly formatted article with what appear to be references, but which do not link to sources mentioning the subject. Insufficient evidence of notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Clearly a personal advert.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It doesn't look like a personal advert, however. Vanity page possibly, but not an advert. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. This sounds like a resume. I'm certain Mr. Johnson is an accomplished dancer, but we're not a resume service, either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - under CSD criterion, A7. References aren't reliable, nothing is verified with those sources, no apparent notability (or even so, locally), maybe promotional. Rt . 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've slapped an A7 onto it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasKeep JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Aoki[edit]

This articles asserts notability and has references, however whether that notability is sufficient is questionable. He is notable seemingly for one reason: an AP interview on one specific one time topic. I see no other notability outside of a response to someone else' comment. Being a writer/reporter alone is not notable. JodyB_talk 15:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 15:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A simple google search ("Guy Aoki" -wiki -silverman) gives over 1,000 hits from a ten-year period 1993-2003. For almost a decade he seems to have been *the* person to go to for a quote on the portrayal of Asians on film or television. That seems to indicate rather more notability than a one-off - but I'm not entirely sure myself it makes him quite notable enough. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has clearly had a lot more coverage than just the one incident the article currently focuses on.--Michig (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not the subject of any major profiles that I can see but there is a record of continuous coverage (successful activism) well back into the 1990s, not just the Silverman incident, including in Google Scholar and Google Books. If it weren't for that I would suggest a move to Media Action Network for Asian Americans. That incident, though, is given WP:NPOV#Undue weight in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to me to meet WIkipedia standards for notablity. Just because someone appears in Google doesn't make them notable. Aoki's claim to fame is that infamous "fracas" with Silverman. Sure, he helped found MANAA, but it's the organization and its work that's important, not him; -- 208.127.79.104 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless references to him in other context are added. And then present contnet would need drastic cutting.DGG (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough awareness of this person as a spokesperson against Asian prejudice, there's notability asserted and proved and there's sources. Article needs work, but it meets acceptable standards of notability. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information on the Sarah Silverman "Chink" controversy is valuable, because it gives an interesting insight into how differenty racism is perceived on American television. I'd rather ask if it should be listed in an Guy Aoki article or in a separate one about the "chink" incident. Tierlieb (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL there appears to be significant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian jokes[edit]

It is believed that this article constitutes original research. John254 15:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is probably an attack page; beyond that, it suffers OR and seems like a hoax. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently unecyclopedic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungarian jokes vote. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete by CSD#G10; "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject". alex.muller (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HelloAnnyong. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 15:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. No Wikipedian would vote 'keep' here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - A7. --Michael Greiner 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpoliticsontheweb.com[edit]

Non-notable website, alexa ranking of about 4 million, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no sources to make it notable, ad. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 15:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and there is no sources. Macy's 123 review me 16:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Weeds of Queensland[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Harland1 (^t/_c) 15:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being (until it has been wikified): The article does not seem to be part of a "directory" at all. The title should be changed to Common weeds of Queensland though. <K F> 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - work to be done but seems reasonably encyclopedic to me, not inappropriate for WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ian Rose. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 15:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it needs to be wikified, but I don't see the "directory" at all. Macy's 123 review me 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Spinningspark (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but rename to something about the invasive plant species of the region as classified in the article, using classes that are defined by the govt. JJL (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a "directory", it's a perfectly reasonable topic which just needs some tidying up. Invasive weeds are a big issue in Australia generally. Nick mallory (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory, but fail to see what that has to do with this article. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This doesn't look like a directory entry at all. It's a referenced description of the classification system, and a (currently) small list of entries. It's a bit obscure and needs some wikifying but seems perfectly suitable for an article. --Canley (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a directory, it's a list. It does what Wikipedia lists do: Identifies a set of things by significant criteria that readers are likely to want (class of things: weeds; geographic loction: Queensland), it addresses a useful topic for people looking up information (usefulness is a good justification for a Wikipedia list, as opposed to an article), it is an encyclopedic topic, and it helps readers navigate through Wikipedia. Even if we address a topic like this with an article, we'd want a list in that article. We should have more lists like this -- types of fauna or flora by geographic location. Noroton (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a useful list. Could probably be renamed from the slightly awkward title though. Lankiveil (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Acceptable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W. Dan Hausel[edit]

Apparent copyvio problems and probably WP:COI of some type up to and including possible entry of subject bio by subject or associate. See talk page for details. Ψν^Psi_nu 14:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a fairly obvious WP:COI or copyvio and doesn't even really assert its own notability, nor does it appear to have any.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alfador, looks like a resumé. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noncompliant with WP:MOS but there are definitely claims to notability there too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've just spent a few minutes researching the guy. The stuff I could find on the 'net was in the same vein. I don't see the notability. Being a successful and acclaimed geologist, martial artist, public speaker and sketch artist makes him interesting, but not encyclopedic. He exists, and there's stuff on the 'net to prove he exists - but none of the stuff I saw was an independent source asserting his notability. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vanity article, no independent evidence of notability. andy (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (trending towards "keep" anyway) — Caknuck (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lokata[edit]

Non-Notable, I only just found a google books reference that this thing even exists. However I can't find any information on the actual device, nor the company that makes it whatsoever. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not written encyclopedically, it has no clear or apparent notability, (the one refence that might suggest it even exists doesn't give any real information)--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speculative, OR, uncited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ian Rose. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Lokata exists, or existed. See http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22lokata+watchman%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= and the web pages that it lists. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it exists, but so does my foot. That doesn't make it notable.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Delete~~ the existence of this technology/device is well attested on the web per below, but no evidence of notability, and poorly unsourced. JJL (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 11,000 Ghits for lokata radar, despite the company being most active during the time the Internet has a serious knowledge gap--the 1970s and before are well covered via historians, and the late 1990s and more recent were described and cataloged in realtime, but in between coverage is relatively very thin, especially outside of popular culture. There are probably plenty of off-line refs. The New Scientist article verifying the Exocet/MoD connection seems to indicate sufficient notability. Shawis (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you find a source for this Exocet story? I've googled over and over and can't find anything. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry just looked at the refs you added to the article, the Exocet one is great (especially if you fiddle with the search parameters, you can finally catch a glimpse of the elusive Lokata Watchman).^[1] Well I'm willing to change my vote to a keep, shame you hadn't came along sooner. How did you find these references though? I really did spend ages looking! Ryan4314 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of small-boat sailors used Lokatas. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis oft he present article and references.DGG (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawis. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - between the products, the company, and the inventor there are enough sources to justify an article. Addhoc (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ http://books.google.com/books?id=IKgoAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22lokata%22+radar&q=%22lokata%22+radar+exocet&pgis=1#search

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 No Notability Asserted by AndonicO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameWorld[edit]

I think this article fails the notability criteria. Also, the article is unsourced (though that can probably be fixed). · AndonicO ^Talk 14:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per A7. Non-notable website. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clearly an advert created to generate traffic to the site with no notability.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alexa returns zilch. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I've deleted it. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola Modding[edit]

A long dicdef, but still a dicdef. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wiki is not a how-to. Suffers OR as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteDoes not give howto instructions, just a guideline for whats available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prybar00 (talk • contribs) 14:00, December 30, 2007 (UTC)

Delete per all above - doesn't belong in WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~Comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prybar00 (talk • contribs) 14:00, December 30, 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Comes under what Wikipedia is not, which is a reason for deletion. alex.muller (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but a dictionary definition with some user-guide / how-to elements thrown in. Also suffering from massive OR issues and for some obscene reason finds the need to refer to the reader directly as "you" Not a reason for deletion on its own but still an abomination.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~Comment You may find this hard to believe, not everyone who reads wikipedia has a Masters in English. Allow me to state again, that my goal was just to start the ball, then hoping the community would help out and we could make it grow, obivously the Wiki community picks and chooses what it's interested in. Nice though, remaining objective, but still using a term like obscene to condescend on my writing style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prybar00 (talk • contribs) 13:53, December 30, 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, (this article should be moved to WikiBooks) Macy's 123 review me 15:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~Comment - After reading and re-reading, i'm pretty sure i didn't include explicit instructions on modding, did i mention step by step what needs to be done? I give a vague outlien, and perhaps i could have written it a little better, but was hoping to just get the ball rolling and let some community people help out with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prybar00 (talk • contribs) 13:53, December 30, 2007 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NOT#HOWTO Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOT, badly.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~Comment - why is everyone here so high and mighty? it doesn't interest you so it doesn't belong. is that it? what is an encyclopedia if not an explanation of what things are. this explains what motorola modding is. and it's a huge community. just do a web search. millions of people involved. i fail to see how it doesn't have the right to have an entry. -- miketheevil1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketheevil1 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a how-to guide, which explicitly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Could also be redirected to Modding. --Bonadea (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--a reply to above comment. this is not a how-to guide. believe me. there is more to it than that. this wiki only explains what it is, not how it's done.Miketheevil1 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)miketheevil1[reply]

Comment I have added "unsigned" templates to the unsigned "Do not delete" comments by Prybar00 above; I'm not sure what the usual practice is when one person posts several "Delete" or "Don't delete" votes in good faith. --Bonadea (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As above. Just strikethrough any additional post past the first one and add Comment next to it.--Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miketheevil1/Prybar00: It's best to write this using reliable sources. This doesn't read like a how-to guide; it's just stating some facts after all, but none of the facts are verifiable at the moment. You need to show that they are actually true by referring to newspapers, etc. –Pomte 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to WikiBooks after wikification and cleanup. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. ><RichardΩ6 12 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Updates - Runescape[edit]

At first, I thought this article should be merged with Runescape, but the "riot" it talks about is unsourced, and this material may not be relevant even to the Runescape universe. Neutral, but leaning towards delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not a Runescape player, so I'm not well-versed in its ways. However, a quick Google search reveals this, which suggests that the "Wilderness Updates" that are relevant to the Runescape universe are developmental, and not related directly to the game per se. Barring that, the facts in the article themselves are dubious; from what I read on that page, the wilderness updates were somewhat different. My uncertainty here leads to my next point, that the authoring of this article seems speculative. In fact, the lack of any sources, plus sentences such as "This update caused a large number of protests, as for many the wilderness was the only fun part of Runescape" and "Bounty Hunter is all multi combat, which means it's very hard for players to fight 1v1 without being `teamed`", lead me to believe that this is nothing more than a pontification from a disgruntled player looking to get his ideas across. As such, delete.-Thatotherguy21 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Runescape has information on this already, and that article is better sourced. This one suffers OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and DPOV) Rich Farmbrough, 15:08 29 December 2007 (GMT).
Delete per WP:NOR. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as complete OR and POV. No need to merge, it already has a brief mention in RuneScape, and that's all it needs. Sure, the update upset a lot of players, but it is completely non-notable in the context of the entire game. There have been riots before in RuneScape, and I'm reasonably confident there will be again. If we start mentioning every incident where a few hundred players get together and start chat-spamming because of an update, we'll end up with more of a fan blog or a forum page than an article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PyroSpirit, there's nothing here that can't be covered in the RS article, and while the author has tried to remain neutral it still smacks of an annoyed RS player predicting DOOM. If any reliable sources have covered these updates then at least there will be some more secondary sources for the RS article. It'll blow over and half of the quitters will crawl back to play with the summon-monsters being released in January ;) Someone another (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might deserve one or two lines in the main RuneScape article, other than that it's just cruft only runescape players would read, filled with WP:OR and probably violates WP:NOT.--Seriousspender (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is unsourced and reads more like a speculative personal opinion essay. --- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No one cares. User:Krator (t c) 14:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, POV issues.. useful information, if any, can be summarised in a couple of sentences. Una Laguna^Talk 17:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Hut 8.5 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter ice festival[edit]

No asserted notability for this event. This article only speels out the circumstances under which the event is held. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is certainly not very well written, does not conform to Wiki style and the one and only reference at the bottom does not really give enough information to make it properly verifiable. It is badly in need of the attention of a good editor. Nevertheless, it is not devoid of encyclopaedic substance and I actually found it interesting. I think that mostly it does not read well because the editors have largely been french speakers. It could be hugely improved if an english speaking editor were to go over it. This is not grounds for deletion. A quick (not very thorough) read through left me with the opinion that the only obvious part deserving of deletion is the penultimate sentence which could be construed as spam for a brand of icecream. Spinningspark (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, possible copyvio. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio of this. Tagged as such. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Jonathan. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Foong[edit]

Nominated for AfD by 203.184.43.210. Deletion proposed by Earth with reason "am not convinced that the person warrants an article in Wikipedia. Anybody wanna try to convince me otherwise?" on 2nd December. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete notable, but smells like OR. Also small neutrality problems. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I don't see anything truly notable from an encyclopedic point of view. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a few sources but nothing substantial. [7] [8] [9] Don't know how reliable these sources are.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article definitely needs copy-editing. I don't think deleting this article is a good idea, as it provides a valuable and relevant link to an article on a rare disease. Alloranleon (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura De Castro[edit]

No obvious claim to notability - unless the Federation of College Democrats is a major organisation. No references given, no sources cited, speculative comments made. No substantive edits made other than by the author. Personally, I can't see any reason to keep this article. CultureDrone (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom unless notability is properly demonstrated. Federation of College Democrats does not have an article so I'll assume non-notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but allow for re-creation if she gets elected president of the College Democrats in 2008. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an officer in a state federation of the college division of a political party is not an inherent claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that the article needs expansion, not deletion. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Karmah[edit]

Entire article is smaller than a sentence Sydney Know It Alltalk 12:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - not a valid deletion reason. It's a stub about a city - a perfectly good encyclopediac subject. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is weak now, but the subject seems to be notable, and it would be more useful to improve the article than to delete it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable enough. Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus here, perhaps WP:SNOW keep, but on the contrary this needs references to prove that it's not a hoax.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily verifiable.--Michig (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cities are inherently notable. It's a stub. There is plenty of context. No nonsense at all. Most articles are not created as good articles on the first effort. The amount of effort put forth here would have been better spent improving stubs. Dloh cierekim 14:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real and recognised settlements are automatically notable, and being short is not a valid reason for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, deleted per: BLP poor sources calling people essentially freaks. 1 != 2 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of real "Superhumans"[edit]

List of people with "superhuman" abilities. Unfortunately, defining "superhuman" is rather subjective, and as such placing any entry on this list would imply a POV. Lankiveil (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - repeating everything from Lankiveil. Even though there seems to have been at least one show on this it's simply not a suitable subject - completely subjective. Appropriate that the creator of an article about superhumans has the username "Nazisavage" - Peripitus (Talk) 13:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. No assertion of notability for any person on the list. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Harland1 (^t/_c) 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 speedily as vandalism. Dloh cierekim 14:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The War of the Worlds (2008 film)[edit]

Silly hoax: IMDB links are to film of The Wind in the Willows. Prod removed by anonymous IP editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete I would say speedy but there is actually nothing in the criteria for SD that covers hoaxes I never noticed before! Please we can't have this rubbish on Wikipedia! Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A complete hoax so therefore comes under vandalism in WP:CSD.Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. IMDB has nothing about another film of the same name to be released in 2008. Lankiveil (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Easy call, maybe even covered by WP:SNOW. alex.muller (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though if someone wants to begin a discussion on merging, I'm fine with that. Wizardman 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community first responder[edit]

Unreferenced and Non notable community. Written like essay. NAHID 12:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I've added a reference for one of the earlier UK examples, although I agree the article could do with more information both about the current state of this tier of the healthcare system in both the UK and elsewhere. Tevildo (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. See Certified first responder#UK Community responder schemes, which covers the topic. _Might_ be worth a seperate article, but I'm not as convinced as I was earlier. Tevildo (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but get rid of all the unsourced opinion (ie: everything after the first two articles). Lankiveil (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Obvious Keep. I always try to assume good faith, but it does seem to me that the nom hasn't read the article. It was tagged for speedy deletion as a test page 6 minutes after creation when it clearly wasn't, and then 12 minutes after that tag was removed it was nominated here as an "Unreferenced and Non notable community" when it is clearly not about a community. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not a very good article, but it has a reference and it's more than a dicdef.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having problems posting source links and am working on improving the article over the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstResponder (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite with NPOV. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Certified first responder. The subject is already well covered. When that section gets to big, then split it out, but right now its only repeating whats already being said.Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charice Pempengco[edit]

Unnotable musician. As per WP:MUSIC, this person's works doesn't merit a separate Wikipedia article. --Howard the Duck 11:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it seems this girl is popular on YouTube and appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres Show twice. Although at first glance she could be notable, not everyone that is popular on YouTube gets a Wikipedia article, unless the person accomplished something else prior or after YouTube fame, such as Jessica Lee Rose of lonelygirl15 fame. As for Ellen, actually these talk shows often invite no-namers to guest and perform, and if Ellen or the host liked it, they'll come back (think of it as Jerry Springer's guests who want to face off one more time).

Ergo, her "popularity" in YouTube plus her appearances in Ellen doesn't alone make her notable; not of course if she releases an album and it sells well, which she hasn't. --Howard the Duck 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom, but this certainly isn't an A7. Lacks third-party references and seems to fall short of meeting either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think making the article at this time was rather premature, as she just started. So I agree with you in that respect. But since the article is already here, I'm thinking it should stay. Taking a look at Google news, there are 9 news articles about her with over 144,000 Google hits (I know it's not a valid reason, but I think it should partially count). I see her on Filipino TV almost everyday (saw her this morning when I woke up lol). And she's been on TV in Sweden and Korea. --Chris S. (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:NMG criterion #1 we should consider articles like this one and this one. I think this may be enough to say weak keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to both Paul Erik and Chris S.: I've watched an entire day of December 30 programming of ABS-CBN and more than frequently they air her story - no surprise since she came from ABS-CBN program Little Big Star. I suppose she wasn't featured on GMA and other networks. Now if anyone receives as much "press" as Charice is that enough reason for her to have a Wikipedia article?

Now for other articles such as the Asian Journal and the Philippine Daily Inquirer, I'd suspect they either chronicle her appearances on Ellen and/or press releases about her YouTube popularity. Again, if these articles does not say anything else, aside from these 2 events, does that make her notable? Lets say a similar person gets similar press coverage when he took an entire courthouse hostage, does that make the hostage-taker that notable that it warrants a creation of a Wikipedia article? --Howard the Duck 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to WP:BIO#People notable only for one event, which says: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. The reason I said "keep" was because it seemed to be a number of events, not just one: the appearance on Little Big Star, the success in Sweden and Korea (as mentioned in one of the articles), the YouTube popularity, and the Ellen appearance. If the media were reporting on each of these events in separate reports, she would certainly notable under WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC criterion #1. It's not clear to me that they were all reported on separately, hence my qualifier of "weak". --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little Big Star was a singing contest, naturally not everyone who sings there would be notable. As for Korea and Sweden, I personally find that to be hype, overhyped by ABS-CBN as a matter of fact. If I ask randomly someone from Stockholm if they knew of this girl and s/he says "yes", then I'm convinced. Her Ellen appearances aren't that big, and are again, hype; as I've said before, several people perform on these talk shows and even return but won't have their Wikipedia article. As for YouTube, I think Charice's popularity hasn't even reached the popularity of another Filipino internet celebrity Happyslip, at least Happyslip got into the NY Times.

Charice may be "famous" for several events but she's not that notable yet for Wikipedia standards. Maybe if she has a hit album, then an article will be appropriate, but speculating that she'll be "big" won't be enough. --Howard the Duck 17:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be in agreement here. Being popular on YouTube does not make a person notable; appearing on a TV show does not make a person notable. I certainly would never argue that she is notable because "one day she'll be big", and frankly I'm perplexed as to why you would even bring that up. I was arguing "weak keep" because of her meeting criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC and because I am not convinced that WP:BIO#People notable only for one event applies. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC, it says on 1.1.3: "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." On the Google News I've added earlier (see below), only one item fits the bill for criterion #1 with all of the exemptions, and it was about her YouTube popularity; either the rest deal with her on passing or fits the exemptions 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. Also, all except for the LA Times article are written in a showbiz fashion that makes you wonder if it's a press release or if the writer merely switched the words from the press release (statements such as "Filipina singing phenom, Charice Pempengco, left the studio audience of the Ellen DeGeneres Show breathless", "Charice Pempengco. Look how far this “Little Big Star” third placer has come. Last June, she flew to Sweden to record for Ten Songs Productions" (Ten Songs Productions is a red-link, w/c probably shows that her Swedish popularity isn't that big after all), "pamamagitan din ng YouTube unang pinahanga ni Charice Pempengco ang buong mundo (English: via YouTube did Charice Pempengco wow the entire world), etc.) --Howard the Duck 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I snooped around Google News and this is the result: 9 hits, all of them about her Ellen appearances and YouTube fame, 3 from the Inquirer, 2 from Asianjournal (they seem to chronicle Asian Americans a lot), 2 from ABS-CBN News, 1 from the Manila Bulletin newspaper (looks like Christmas wishes, "For Charice Pempengco to continue making her fellow Filipinos proud."), and 1 from the Los Angeles Times but only in passing: "a person billed as YouTube star Charice Pempengco." Her Korean and Swedish successes aren't cited in the article, although she had/will have a Korean trip since I saw it on ABS-CBN today. --Howard the Duck 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the Korean and Swedish successes are cited in this article. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gimme a Korean and Swedish news report and I'll believe the truthfulness of this "fame". --Howard the Duck 12:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the media attention she gained in Asia (and beyond) , it is not hard to foresee that she will become an established and major singer in Asia in immediate future. Deleting the article now is shortsighted and is just complete waste of time because when she release album in few weeks time then we will have to start all over again. --Da Vynci (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sure is a lot of media attention if you ask me... --Howard the Duck 10:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even here in Korea she's well known by her two guestings on the nation's popular SBS Star King show where she was also chosen best 'foreign act' among the more than 50 foreign acts in 2007. I'd say rather keep than restart again in a few weeks. A search on naver.com (Korean search machine, worldwide 5th biggest search machine) comes up with quite some hits on mostly Korean Blogs. Considering the nature of Korean blogs, the popularity of Charice Pempengco is reflected in the number of entries in those blogs. Santoki (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think blogs won't qualify as reliable sources; with that said, the last time I looked at Google News, there were no Korean news items about Charice, only 8 Philippine and 1 American (albeit in passing). --Howard the Duck 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not taking blogs as a qualified source. I'm referring to the phenomena of the blogs in Korea which are these days being used by the industry to get user opinions on products. Also I'm not referring to English articles but to articles in Korean hangeul. This might not be relevant for this article, since it's in English. What I'm trying to show is that there is a relevance to Charice being recognized as an artist. Santoki (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually blogs are everywhere, not just in Korea. For example, there would be blogs about several reality TV contestants, and most of the time, the mere presence of blog posts, or even blogs wholly dedicated to these people, aren't enough basis for having a Wikipedia article. For example, Ashley Ferl aka "Sanjaya Malakar's crying Girl" undoubtedly amassed lots of discussion in the blogosphere, and even if she did have her own article, it was subsequently deleted and was placed as a section in the American Idol (season 6) article. (Incidentally, Ashley Ferl was spoofed on the Ellen DeGeneres Show.)
    - P.S.: Does Google News include non-English news sources in English searches? I'd like to imagine several Korean news agencies may have English translations of their original Korean news pieces so I can fully investigate on the matter. --Howard the Duck 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had somewhere once a study on the Korean blogs as being different from their western counterparts. And why it was important for the industry. But I would have to dig in my archive to see if I can find it again. I don't think that Google News is including those non-English sources. It's a major problem for Google that it can't not index those sources that are indexed by Naver. Naver tries to keep foreign search -machines out which causes a major headache for Google. I meanwhile edited the article, added some stuff but I believe it needs more edit in order to fit also a NPOV. Santoki (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Is there a way to search Korean news agencies a la Google News? If she has several number of hits, and they have English translations, they can be useful, but if they're all Korean I'd rather place this article on the Korean Wikipedia, that is if she's that notable enough for Koreans. As for blogs, unfortunately even if they're different from their Western counterparts, we can't still use them -- now if these Korean news agencies pick up something from the Korean blogosphere and publish it in English then Charice would be notable enough if there were like 20 news stories about her. As of now, in the English Google News, there are now 10 (additional one from the Inquirer). Now if you'd consider having an article in the English article where there were ten news stories, and not all of them even "legit", then we'd better create articles for several other people we've never heard off before, like Ashley Ferl who has 39 news stories. --Howard the Duck 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's a rather active debate going on as to whether Charice deserves her own article, I'd rather vote for a merge to the main Little Big Star article. IMHO, it is too early to ascertain if she has deserved her own lasting fame much like Makisig Morales. A good parallel would be the American Idol contestants: normally, the winner ends up having his/her own article, and the other finalists get their own articles if and when their professional career took off many, many months (and even years) after the contest they were first known for. Case in point: in American Idol season 3, Carrie Underwood has her own page, and it took a while before the runners up such as Bo Bice and Constantine Maroulis had their own pages. For us in the Philippines, it's a bit too hard to verify and evaluate any sources (including blogs) about Charice from Korea since not many of us know Korean (though it's something that I'd also like to learn in the future). As for her appearance in the Ellen Degeneres Show, I guess Ellen also has many such guests everyday (it's a daily show), and I don't think even all of the guests have their own articles. For this reason, I couldn't vote on "delete", considering the precedent set in the American Idol articles. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the criteria is not whether we think she deserves an article yet, but rather WP:N, and with multiple independent coverage in newspapers, there are multiple independent sources (examples: [10], [11], [12]) writing about the her. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is what's the threshold? 3 published stories? 10? 100? Currently there can only be 10 "valid" refs for this article, excluding blogs and other unreliable sources. --Howard the Duck 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold is "multiple", so I'd say 3 is certainly adequate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that too low a threshold? A lot of articles could've been un-deleted if we take the literal definition of "multiple" which is "more than one." My name was published in one newspaper, if I can find another one, then I can be on Wikipedia! Weeee --Howard the Duck 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than "mentioned". If you've been profiled in a couple of newspapers, then yes, maybe you should have an article. Wiki is not paper, so a low threshold for notability is fine so long as there are reliable sources with an emphasis on reliable. --- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you will carefully scrutinize these news stories, it's the Asianjournal one that gives the most detail, although it is a Filipino-American media agency (ergo, not mainstream). The Philippine Daily Inquirer (a national newspaper) mentions her either in passing or via an article that looks like a press release, and as WP:MUSIC says, if the article is a "Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble." then it's excluded from the "mentioned" and/or "profiled." As I've said before, several people may even have more than 50 news stories published about them, but they won't have a Wikipedia article. I don't see how this one fits the bill. On the ten possible legit references, only 2 can really be used in the article. Now if you're willing to write an article using 2 references then Wikipedia's going to the dustbins. --Howard the Duck 17:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:MUSIC also says, 9. won or placed in a major music competition. Now, we can of course go and argue about what is major and what is not. Personally I would consider LBS a major music competition considering the fact that it was not only one TV show but a whole series thereof. WP:MUSIC is also just a "rough" guideline and not carved in stone. Personally I believe that having had so many performances on TV does count somewhat. I mean having an article about yourself in a newspaper is one thing, but the threshold to be on national TV is a pretty high one. Santoki (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquirer article does read like a press release written by a publicist, and knowing how entertainment sections go, it reads less of a news article. As for ABS-CBN, it has a penchant for trivializing minor events in the entertainment industry and passing it off as "news", even giving it more importance than the current events (anyone who has seen TV Patrol would understand what I mean). Personally, for the entertainment news, I'd be distrustful of both the Inquirer and ABS-CBN, more so with ABS since Charisse won in an ABS-CBN-sponsored contest (for instance, why was there no mention at all from ABS's rival GMA7? How many other Philippine newspapers other than the Inquirer reported this?) Had she not been in a televised contest such as LBS, I would have said "delete", but be that as it may, I'd still go for a merge, for the foregoing reasons. --- Tito Pao (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find at least two articles on GMA News TV about Charice. They didn't really write it themselves but just copied it from the Philippine Entertainment Portal. But you can find at least something on this topic on their website... --- Santoki (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We have to wait for ample time for valid reasons such as an album to come up. Starczamora (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Everyone keeps discussing how she's not "notable" in the US-- but what about the rest of the world, where she is? 65.3.169.55 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability for the rest of the world remains suspect. --Howard the Duck 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it is becuase you don't read any news from Asian media (e.g. in Korean languages) . You should stop using Google News as the sole indicator of popularity because it is an American company and may not provide first hand, accurate info on particular Asian subject. --Da Vynci (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors should then provide information from Korean news articles about Pempengco. (I can't read Korean, so I can't help you with that.) Starczamora (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google News for lots of non-American (mostly Filipino) subjects. Now if there's not enough English news media to establish notability for the English-speaking world (the Philippines is a English speaking country), then there's no chance for this to be a legit article. Even English versions of Korean stories. --Howard the Duck 08:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that does not mean we should reject news articles other than English as valid sources in English Wikipedia. Case in point, Asian Idol has an assortment of sources ranging from English to Indonesian to Vietnamese. Starczamora (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but English sources are given more importance. And as long as anyone can translate from a language to English, there shouldn't be a problem, especially since there's enough English references for Asian Idol to stand alone. --Howard the Duck 08:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are information in Asian Idol that were sourced from non-English articles, such as SuperStar KZ's supposed participation and the partial results (both are in Indonesian) as well as Siu Black's participation as judge (which was written in Vietnamese). Also, following your argument, Vietnam Idol should also have been deleted since all of its sources are in Vietnamese. Starczamora (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "Even English versions of Korean stories" so at least English transliterations can be barely accepted. --Howard the Duck 09:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying that a person in a non-English country who becomes famous won't have a chance to get on Wikipedia solely because there are no sources available in English? This can't really be it, no? ---Santoki (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in English are preferred in the English wikipedia, but not mandatory. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Note that this is official policy, and not just a guideline. -- Whpq (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but an article where there can only be 10 legit refs? And I have yet to see a Korean, Swedish or Zambian news item about her. You people must be really that desperate to "save" articles... 10 legit refs? --Howard the Duck 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have news articles in Korean. But since you can't read those I guess you won't accept those. And we're then again at circle one. Currently there are 7 hits if I give Charice's name in Korean into the search machine. --- 00:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (sorry, signed my post but it didn't show my name... Santoki (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In addition I just found an article in French about a radio show on December 1st 2007 in Switzerland on vibration fm, a local radio in the canton of Valais or Wallis. -- Santoki (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet this is just like the LA Times article: "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." --Howard the Duck 04:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just so the people may know, Charice Pempengco pays courtesy call to President GMA today, January 4. Starczamora (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several unknown people do have courtesy calls on the president. --Howard the Duck 04:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But do they end up the sole subject of an article? -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep Notable as you could hope for. Last article by Starczamora pushes it right over. Hobit (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Rename to Canada-Latin America relations (although if anyone does not like the new name please rename it if necessary. --JForget 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada - Latin American Foreign Policy[edit]

This is unencyclopedic and it sets a bad precedent. If we create articles for every nation's relations with a geographic, ethnic, or linguistic area then we'll be trying to work out disputes over vague, subjectively-defined subject matter. Jose João (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but rename) - relations between Canada and any one of these countries is probably not notable, however Canada does often deal with other countries in a group, whether it is based on history and culture (Commonwealth, Francophonie), geography (Caribbean) or some combination of both (e.g. the CARIBCAN agreement with the Caribbean Commonwealth countries). This is no exception. I'll note that this article is also a convention of other multilateral realtions pages such as Transatlantic relations and more to the point: United States-Latin American relations. Kevlar67 (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Probably should be renamed, as the title is rather awkward, but otherwise no problem with the verifiable, sourced article. Lankiveil (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, relations are often conducted on a regional basis, states have policies towards certain groups and this is a full informative article. Latin America is very cohesive and have common issues, it is often treated is a block by other states when developing policy and holding meetings.- J Logan ^t: 13:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Well-referenced, should be a notable subject.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This is encyclopedic and notable. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - Well-referenced. Macy's 123 review me 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Nightstallion 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but keep. This is a standard format for international relations articles. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename Canada-Latin America relations. Encyclopedic and a good precedent for a precise, consensus-defined subject matter. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. --Soman (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mound, Louisiana[edit]

Delete,Completely non-notable village of 12 people. Markb (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a pretty strong view that all places are kept and I think that has some merit. "All knowledge" should contain all places. --Bduke (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have all U.S. census designated places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not a directory; each article should be here on it's own merit, not just because another article about another place exists. what's so special about the U.S. census anyway?Markb (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The working consensus noted in WP:OUTCOMES is that towns and villages are notable regardless of size. The U.S. Census Bureau designation makes the status of the village verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As you state, the historical consensus is noted in WP:OUTCOMES; it is not a set of rules. Markb (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no bright line boundary, but towns tend to be notable for their histories and their inhabitants. A quick Google search shows that important science was conducted in Mound in the first half of the 20th century, especially USDA mosquito control studies in the 1910s and 1920s. This village has something to write about. Even the place name has a story. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll change my vote if someone puts that in the article. By the way WP:OUTCOMES says " . . towns and villages are acceptable regardless of size", not notable. My interpretation of that would be a village is not AUTOMATICALLY notable. Spinningspark (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I too will happily withdraw if this sort of information were to be added to the article. Markb (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous article. Ironically, many of the same people who would argue that Madison Parish High School is non-notable... are those who will argue that a place in Madison Parish where the school bus happens to stop is "inherently notable". I have yet to see a policy that says that every frikcin' name on the map is entitled to its own article. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, there is precedent a lightyear long that all census-designated places are notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Lankiveil (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep - I agree.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stats seem notable: 4 households of which 33.3% are below the poverty line. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a serious "keep" or are you being sarcastic? For those who can't do arithmetic, 33.3% implies the number of households is divisible by three. For those that still don't get it; 4 does not divide by 3[13].Spinningspark (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Settlement acknowledged by U.S. Census Bureau [14]. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Wikipedia is not the U.S. Census Bureau and it is interesting to note that even they do not consider this village to be notable enough to hold on their website: http://www.census.gov Markb (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try the population finder on the right side of the page. Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Noted. 09:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sources do verify it as a real place, although really teensy. Ψν^Psi_nu 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is this 'light-year long precedent' that all places in the US census are notable actually documented in Wiki policy? Is there a discussion somewhere where a consensus was reached that you can point to? Would you accept inclusion of a village of 12 in Indonesia? There are an awful lot of small villages in Indonesia. Spinningspark (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not try to be comprehensive? Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. "non-notable village" does not compute. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - next they'll be deleting Prudhoe Bay, which incidentally has a population of 5. EJF (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the lowest possible minimum number of people -- 12-- for a hamlet/village to be per se notable, IMHO. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All towns/villages are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bot created articles for all US census locations, and they have been kept in AFDs so far as I know. Hamlets and villages in other countries have been kept on the basais of short entries in the 1911 Britannica or other proof of existence. These census entries or other governmental or historical or scholarly sources satisfy the Wikipedia requirement for verifiability. The common outcomes of countless AFDs have been that verifiable villages have been kept. Because of that implicit practice, a listing of multiple sources with substantial coverage may not be required as is normally the case to satisfy notability requirements, although that question could be argued at the talk page of WP:N. A comparable village in Indonesia which is listed as a census unit by that country's government should likewise be kept. Flooding at Mound, LA is discussed at [15] . The origin of the place name is discussed at [16]. There were important antimalarial experiments there in 1920-1930 [17] [18] [19] [20]. It has been a location in fiction [21]. The "Moneymaker" variety of pecan originated there [22]. Indian mounds there have been studied [23]. In summary, the stub article can be improved and expanded by adding reliable sources which discuss at least its historic river bank location, and the malaria research there.Edison (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I look forward to all this interesting stuff being added to the article. Markb (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. come on, you've had a day now to add it.... Markb (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no deadline. Of course, you're free to add the material. :) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All census-designated places are kept by consensus. The only requirement in the past has been to prove that they actually do exist. --Smashville^BONK! 07:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The United States Census Bureau says it exists, now all the way up to 13 residents. All such gazzetted places are notable. Alansohn (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a census-designated place. Beyond that, I'm inclined to think, contra Mandsford's comment, that every frickin' name on the map should have its own article; I wouldn't phrase it in terms of entitlement, but of service to our readers. JamesMLane t c 10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The precedent for keeping census-designated places seems strong. I join with others in recommending that new material noted in the AfD discussion should be added to the article. The present contents of the article are not very interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - census-designated places should be kept. matt91486 (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Census-designated place. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as WP:SNOW. Bduke (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians 2[edit]

Delete, How do you define Egyptians as an ethnicity, the vast majority of Egyptians are Arabs and then there are the Copts though they are slightly culturally Arabs today, maybe just linguistically or slightly culturally...How do you define modern egyptian ethnicity? Is it by stating a common descent from the ancient Egyptians, the borders for defining what was Egyptian then and what is Egyptian now aren't easily defined today? This is confusing even for me??? The Coptics and the Nubians do have acknowledged ties to the ancient Egyptians but can we overencompass the arab definition with that of acknowledging ancestral non-Egyptians, through acknowledging arab-ness where does one acknowledge ancient Egyptian ethnicity?Dom--Hisham 5ZX (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nom. The article has abundant evidences of reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the truth. The nominator reason is only about content dispute, not suitable for deletion of the article. Dekisugi (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article is highly notable per WP:N and is multiple sources for verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Like Dekisugi says. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and keep your nationalist disputes away from Articles for Deletion, thank you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians[edit]

article is a history not a surveys of people. other users ignores talks consensus to delete and create new article, refuse to debates issue in talk pages only to revert the page.

The article needs a complete rewrite, and I think it can be done like so:

Cut the History section by at least 90%. It should just be a summary type thing or sketch with a link to the main article History of Egypt A lot of websites so something similar in about 60 lines.
Expand a Culture section to tell us who are really the Egyptians. For the rewrite, I recommend you look at other similar articles and then work up an outline- cusisine, music, arts etc etc and go from there.
Include a "National character/How others see the Egyptians" section, like the Dutch and Swedish articles. This is very important for the Egyptians since historically they saw themselves as unique and even today do not simply consider themselves just another set of Arabs. They are a distinctive people, and that issue needs to be explored fully.
Also to be considered for inclusion is at least some brief discussion on relations with other peoples surrounding Egypt like Israel. This is also important for the Egyptians have put their own distinctive stamp on that issue. The 1973 Crossing Operation for example is generally regarded with respect by most non-Egyptian military analysts, see Herzog's Arab-Israeli Wars history for example, more so than the uneven performance by many Arab armies. This is only one example of course, but in this and many other ways, the Egyptians have made their mark. This needs to be brought out on a page like this. Obscure details about the 451 Council of Chalcedon or ancient solar calendars belong elsewhere.

Consensuses: Delete areticle and rewrite totally like Dutch People or Swedes articles. Moved duplicate history section to its own article called Historical perspectives on the Egyptian people. now focus can be on egyptian people not history. Nardelli 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly speedy keep The article is well-written and referenced over 100 times. If the nominator has a problem with the content of the article, he should bring it up on the article's talk page (which he has barely done, judging from Nardelli's contribution history). AfD is not the place for this discussion. -- Kicking222 02:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the nominator's page split referenced above was speedily deleted as a misguided fork. -- Kicking222 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, improve the article via its talk page, and stop trying to make a point or POV fork--Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, recommend immediate close. AfD is not a vehicle for content disputes involving clearly valid articles. Newyorkbrad 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator withdrew his request. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Thompson[edit]

She's just another journalist, making her non-notable. The only notability is FHM's list. I'm not sure if that alone makes her qualify WP:N. -xC- 09:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient notability and independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's notable for being one of the main presenters, on the biggest sports news show in the country, and the FHM thing. Sunder land 06 12:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't know how this works. Just for knowledge, why are presenters of news shows notable too? Thanks for explaining,-xC- 12:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody is notable just for having a particular job, but, to quote WP:N, "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable."--Michig (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, almost a speedy keep. Notable enough.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Hardcore[edit]

"Geek Hardcore", as it stands, is a neologism that supposedly describes a more progressive form of Post hardcore bands, but I've never seen the term used in any reputable music journalism, AFAIK. If there are any sources that would say otherwise, adding them to this article would probably work, but frankly, the sentence "In 2007, a Post-Hardcore fan named Tibbalz coins the genre after seeing the similarities in the music he listened too and the bands' distinctness when compared to other Post-Hardcore bands." pretty much indicates original research. I don't see much else on this article that doesn't make it an fork of the original Post hardcore article. TheLetterM (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and no original research. Mh29255 (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Mh29255 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poeloq (talk • contribs) 10:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as OR, neologism, fails WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pper WP:NEO. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO --Mhking (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting Hall of Fame[edit]

Non-notable organization. Despite its grandiose name, there are no independent sources to verify the notability of this body. The article is largely a listing of red links, which the author claims will be remedied "over time." The article appears to be a coat rack on which to justify articles about its members; that is, the existence of this article justifies the existence of the others. There are a few Google hits, largely links to Ohio State pages or a few press-release type pages, nothing more. The author's tone is too promotional as well, and promotion seems to be the main purpose of the article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I regret saying, in my first talk page response to Realkyhick, that having the article on Accounting Hall of Fame was "essential" (my poor wording) to establishing the notability of individuals listed. Clearly, the articles for individuals have to stand on their own merits. Having received the award, however, can be one indication of an individual's notability, whether or not there is a wikipedia article on the award. Having the wikipedia article is useful though, as the inductees of this award are an interesting list of notable non-academic accountants as well as very notable academics. I imagine that browsing this list, when it is further developed, can be of interest to aspiring accountants and others. doncram (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The institution may not be widely known but a simple Google search (excluding Wikipedia and OSU) returns a few thousand hits. Reading a couple of those pages, my feeling would be that it passes the notability test. I do agree that the article needs the {{Unreferenced}} and {{POV}} tags though. --Kimon^talk 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My own Google search on "Accounting Hall of Fame" (with quote marks, which is very important) returned nowhere near that many hits, at least those that were relevant. Again, my fear is that not only is the hall not notable enough, but the article is being used as a coat rack to establish notability for its members, most of whom would not likely be notable otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reponse - Did you click on the link I provided? Could you please provide your search link? --Kimon^talk 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would not object to it having a tag regarding referencing. I note that other awards in the similar fields of economics such as the Michael Brennan Award, the Frisch Medal, and Jensen Prize are similar in that they are mostly red-links and that the only source is the body giving the award, and these do not have referencing tags. The T. S. Ashton Prize, by contrast, does have a referencing tag. See Category:Economics Awards for list of these and others. I begin to think it could be a general problem, how to establish the relative merits of various awards. While there are many academic studies rating the relative importance of journals, I am not aware of academic studies that rate the importance of various awards. doncram (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Also, I note there are lots and lots of awards in the Category:Award stubs not tagged and not marked for deletion. Why attack this one? The fear that I would use the article as a "coat rack" is a colorful argument but not compelling, as each article about an individual does have to stand on its own. doncram (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I just haven't gotten to the others yet. This one — actually, the article for one of the inductees — stuck out in the New Articles list that I was monitoring. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: For others, FYI, the article you first marked was my one sentence version of Katherine Schipper, which someone else immediately unmarked, and which i since expanded somewhat.
Keep per Kimon. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An honest google search (with quotes) shows almost no recognition of this outside its founding institution. The article makes plenty of OR assertions about prestige and notability without ever actually showing any information to back them up. This articles main use seems to be creating an argument for notability for many of its members which would otherwise not have any.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per my comment above, the award can be one argument for an individual's notability, but having the award article is not needed to use receipt of award in asserting an individual's notability. The list of inductees is an interesting list. doncram (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, maybe. Notable, far from it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of these Google News hits seem usable, particularly the Philadelphia Inquirer article about the place. Zagalejo^^^ 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added significantly to the article, including adding the Philadelphia Inquirer quip, but more importantly adding documentation of American Accounting Association recognition of the award and information from a Journal of Accounting Research article about the award. Please take another look now. doncram (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. Get rid of the cruft -- the table with all those red links -- and add more cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep the table--the red links are articles that need to be written, since their award probably indicates notability . DGG (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. A Google news search seems to indicate notability for the hall of fame although the articles are behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Stormie (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Shafiee Ardestani[edit]

Utterly unnotable, very few Google hits. A few articles in medline does not make a researcher or scientist notable - I have a few medline hits for myself and I'm not notable. Also, article is evidently created by Ardestani himself. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not an encyclopedia article. It's more like a CV/resume.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not asserted - I would've listed it as a CSD. --Kimon^talk 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: all his notability appears to be potential, not actual. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. --Crusio (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Maybe a merger should be attempted, as suggested below. Sandstein (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Delahoussaye[edit]

Nominating for deletion -- unreferenced and not notable. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural completion of nomination - my opinion is ~~Neutral~~. Tevildo (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a prominent member in a notable band.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. A prominent member of a notable band (Blue October), true, but is that enough to make him notable in his own right, without a solo career or any non-musical achievements? Perhaps, but not indisputably. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's a co-founder of Blue October - a band that is an inspiration to countless thousands of people. His band has played on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, and Jimmy Kimmel Live. They have released five critically acclaimed albums, the most recent of which took only 10 months to reach platinum status. The first single from their most recent album reached #2 on Billboard's modern rock chart, and the two music videos for their last two singles made it into the top 10 on VH1, with the most recent video reaching the #1 spot. Oh, and I almost forgot: They were personally invited to open for the Rolling Stones. He's one of the most talented violinists of his generation. I'd say he deserves an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.33.245 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those are very good reasons to keep an article on his band, Blue October (the "THEY" to which you keep referring) -- however, there are no sources for an article on the individual, and notability is not established. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jkp212. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, notability not established, and blatant COI issues. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep key member of an obviously notable band. Should definitely be expanded, however. Avruchtalk 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge compromise? The article repeats lots of stuff about the band and there is maybe one sentence about his role in the band and nothing about him in particular. Merge with band until there is something to say. If it was deleted then wikipedia might lose a valuable sentence,,, it can stand the loss if merging isnt possible Victuallers (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly the best thing to do is take the valuable sentence (if it is valuable), and include it in the article about the band, which is really the notable entity. I can't find any reliable sources that could help create a real BIO on this man. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Notable member of a notable band. In particular, he is a notable electric violinist. Lama Ding Dong (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that user Lama Ding Dong who has contributed to this discussion is a banned user and sockpuppet. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every band member of notable bands is notable, but as a founding member of the band, I think he meets the notability threshold. Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne L. Rubinas[edit]

Contested prod. Former mayor of Ocala, Florida (pop. 50,000), now adjunct lecturer at Florida State University. No clear evidence of enough coverage for notability for local politicians per WP:BIO, or evidence of passing the WP:PROF test. Rigadoun (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Former small-town politician, former political consultant, minorly disgraced lawyer, very minor academic, university "circle of gold" award most likely meaning that he gave money to the university. None of these things adds up to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete David Eppstein's said it all. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on mayoralty. I agree that his professorship is, as far as this article discloses, nonnotable. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I note that WP:N says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable, but "Just being an elected local official [...] does not guarantee notability". and Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#People says "Mayors of major cities have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors". Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Anne Brady[edit]

Non-notable character, from a story. No assertation of notability or sourcing. Lawrence Cohen 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable fictional character. Almost worth a speedy. Lankiveil (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Is the book notable? If not, then this is even less notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable character. Macy's 123 review me 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. ——Quasirandom (speak) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - considering that the book isn't notable, this definitely isn't. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Creature_type#Giant. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 03:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verbeeg[edit]

I placed a prod tag on this article, and left what I thought was a gentle, educational message that it was a "Directory-like listing of non-notable fictional monster. Sources on page are drawn from within the D&D books, are as such are primary. Primary sources are good for meeting WP:V, but not for WP:N. This article would need more than one third-party source to meet notability requirements." An editor removed my tag with the following edit summary, "rmv template--i object to deletionism in general." So I must bring this article here for a debate. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. It's good to see that there are people out there who must fulfill their holy mission. Merge to User:AnteaterZot, so he can improve this terrible article taking up so much bandwidth.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles like this one make Wikipedia look bad, and comments like that one make you look bad. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, deleting all these crufty fiction articles is sure making all the non-fiction articles look superb. George Washington is looking so much better already.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AnteaterZot has only been editing since August 16, 2007. It seems most of these deletionists are n00bs who don't know the true spirit of Wikipedia and are too lazy or unsophisticated to write or improve articles, so they take joy in deleting and destroying them instead.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coming from an IP whose first edits are December 29, 2007 according to their own edit log. TJ Spyke 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I object to fancruft in general. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creature_type#Giant. Tevildo (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, D&Dcruft. No notability in the wider world. Lankiveil (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Removing templates in this manner is not editing in good faithSpinningspark (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding templates in this manner is not editing in good faith. Also, I object to irrational deletionism in general.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creature_type#Giant per Tevildo. BOZ (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely in-universe (see WP:IN-U), no third party sources. TJ Spyke 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep per suggestions above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creature_type#Giant per Tevildo. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Creature_type#Giant Web Warlock (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete. I also dislike deletionism and blind adding of templates as well, but this one can be merged. Web Warlock (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the article can be removed now that the merge is done? Merge. ··gracefool ☺ 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be removed. Sorry. Busy day. Web Warlock (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd simply redirect it in that case, but I don't want to do something that an admin might object to. BOZ (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasMerge/Redirect JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards for House (TV series)[edit]

This article does not serve any encyclopedic purpose, it's simply a list containing items of varying notability; essentially an indiscriminate collection of information. The main House (TV series) article should list the main awards and this one should be deleted. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per nom. No need for a separate list article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such action. Pick one or the other. So far, all editors to comment have wanted an article merger. If no editor wants an actual deletion, which precludes merger, within the next 24 hours, I shall close this discussion as keep. Do not bring article mergers to AFD. Article merger does not involve deletion, or AFD, at any stage of the process. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding Uncle G's comment above, this should be Merged to House (TV Series). Lankiveil (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. Do I have to give a reason why?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge incredibly obvious Doc Strange (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge -- which means, to explain the obvious to Uncle G, means someone takes the INFORMATION from the article, adds it using their own GFDL-approved words with their own GFDL-approved little typing fingers -- which should be easy, since it's a simple, non-copyrightable compilation of data -- then has an admin delete the article. Simple as that. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and not Merge) - While a merger wouldn't be the end of the world, House (TV series) has an awards section with two well-written paragraphs, and I think this article is a good way of keeping the main article uncluttered and pared down to size. In any case, no need for an AfD. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the reason HisSpaceResearch doesn't have to even say either. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 06:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to parent. I can't find any information in this article to migrate, and the small paragraph seems to be good enough for most people (at best, it could be updated.). --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7- author requested deletion. Mattinbgn\^talk 07:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hergest land[edit]

Potentially non-notable book series. Googling for the name of the title or the given author yields no results; a spelling change on the author's last name yields 273 hits, but none have anything to do with the topic. Article was PROD'd and removed by the creator. Article currently fails WP:RS as well. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As it currently stands, there is very little, if anything, to verify the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified non-notable book series. Lankiveil (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as appearing to fail WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has tagged this for speedy deletion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to either no claim of notability or snowball clause (your choice), with vandalism of this discussion/vote by the article's creator on top. (Service not included.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuphoriaX[edit]

Article establishes no notability for the band. The page seems to simply be an advertisement/bio page created by either a band member or someone associated with it. The only albums this band has created are self published and there is no indication of widespread recognition or any "hits" per WP:MUSIC notability guidelines Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After giving it some thought this seems to fall under general criteria #11 for speedy deletion and I'm marking it for such as well.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this artist isnt well known doesn't give reasons for deletion, i for this reason see this as unfair, and is notable with the WP:BAND as 2 of the 3 singles have had more than one hour of radio play, on 90.7 SYN FM, Australia, which now is in the article!--T0ny993 | talk 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm sure you don't want this article to be deleted, modifying other's opinions like you did here are unacceptable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And don't remove other people's comments, like you did to my comment above. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well dont make stupid idiotic complaints that are false, you say that it isnt notable by WP:BAND However if you check the atricle for radioplay, it actually is, so get your facts right!. T0ny993 (talk, walk) 08:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do not alter other people's comments. I just reverted your vandalism, replacing one of his liks with a link to some website and replacing the second with a link to the anal sex article. TJ Spyke 09:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article per nom. Group isn't notable by WP:BAND. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This band is undocumented anywhere. Once again, we see a musical group that went to MySpace to sell its music and went to Wikipedia to write up primary source documentation about itself, cross linking the two. Wikipedia is not a free web host for bands to document themselves. Please pay for your own web hosting. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, that things only warrant articles in once they have been independently documented by the world at large. Per our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies, delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Wouldn't ahve bothered voting until I saw the vandalism of the supporters. No place on Wikipedia for people like that.Spinningspark (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:MUSIC indicates that non-notable songs "should redirect to another relevant article" and, as the articles have already been merged, the articles must be retained for authorship history to satisfy the requirements of GFDL. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fountain of Salmacis(Genesis song)[edit]

This is simply a song written and performed by Gensis. Per WP:MUSIC songs should not have there own articles unless they have something that specifically sets their notability above most songs. This article makes no assertion of such. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the following:

Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Instead of creating song stubs like this one, I recommend detailing tracks in the album article, with redirects from song titles as appropriate; that makes a richly detailed album article instead of however many permastubs. (Example: Black Sabbath, Vol 4, my merge.) Since this stub is unusually skimpy, and the title is both malformed (spacing) and an unlikely search string (since readers are unlikely to add "(Genesis song)" in a search), just delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coincidentally I was listening to the album that this song's from yesterday, but in Wikipedia-related terms, this is a poorer duplicate of The Fountain of Salmacis. I think that in general, stubby song articles should generally be merged to the album article, giving the album articles a greater chance of good article/featured article attainment.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that The Musical Box (song), For Absent Friends and The Return of the Giant Hogweed are also songs from the Nursery Cryme album with indidvidual article pages - should these be deleted too? I think a mass merge is necessary.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be happy to perform this merge if everyone else is okay with it. I'm asking permission because I do not normally edit Genesis articles. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding these to the discussion. / 18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As I already suggested, these should all be merged and redirected to Nursery Cryme. I strongly suggest that we do that with these articles - deletion is not the answer. They lack stand-alone notability, but the album is definitely notable. (Good album, too, one of Genesis' best).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's possibly misleading to add these extra articles to the AfD after people have already voted delete - The Fountain of Salmacis(Genesis song) is a recently created article that as noted above is unusually skimpy, and just a poorer duplicate of The Fountain of Salmacis, which should be deleted anyway, whatever people's views on song articles. Mdwh (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the new nominations in comments (instead of at the top) with a timestamped sig so that previous comments will be understood not to apply to these items. This was done deliberately to avoid the kind of confusion you mention. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only for The Fountain of Salmacis(Genesis song) as it is redundant, and there seems no value in keeping the title as a redirect. Mdwh (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Nursery Cryme for all other articles listed here. WP:MUSIC does not say that such articles should be deleted, it says "should redirect to another relevant article". At least some of the information in these articles is useful, and it's useful to have the redirects to avoid a load of broken links (not to mention avoid people recreating the articles in future). The songs easily meet notability, it's just that it's preferred to have the information in a single article rather than loads of separate stubs. Mdwh (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have merged all 5 song stubs to Nursery Cryme. I made very few changes and deleted no content, but it would be helpful for someone familiar with Genesis to review my work. The song stubs can now be deleted or redirected as needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. That was needing to be done. I'm interested of what you think of the existence of stubs about every song article on another 1971 album - Sticky Fingers by The Rolling Stones. I suggested at the WikiProject that these should be merged to the album article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am familiar with Genesis myself, but there are other Wikipedians who are also familiar with them per the fact that Genesis (band) and Phil Collins are featured articles.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This kind of merge is easy to do. I'll look into Sticky Fingers. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we remove these other articles from the AfD now? (I'm not sure what the official procedure is - am just worried that when this inevitably closes as Delete, an admin will delete all the other redirects too as they are listed with this AfD, even though there seems to be consensus to keep them as redirects.) Mdwh (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This song and others on the album have been merged into the album's entry. --Jeff Johnston (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the song titles should stay as redirects.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still favor deleting titles with disambiguation strings on the end. This would include The Fountain of Salmacis(Genesis song) and The Musical Box (song). I agree with redirecting the 3 plainly titled articles. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree regarding The Fountain of Salmacis(Genesis song), since that is completely redundant (we have the simpler The Fountain of Salmacis instead). However, The Musical Box (song) is still needed, as The Musical Box redirects to Musical box. We should have something for this song which redirects to the Nursery Cryme page. Mdwh (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three options I like better than keeping The Musical Box (song):

Add {{Redirect6|The Musical Box|the Genesis song|Nursery Cryme}} to Musical box.
Change The Musical Box to redirect to the DAB page Music box. (This makes more sense for the search term "The Musical Box" than redirecting to the article for a literal music box, IMO.) Nursery Cryme is listed there.
Redirect The Musical Box to Nursery Cryme and add to Nursery Cryme {{Redirect6|The Musical Box|the Genesis tribute band|The Musical Box (band)}}. This makes even more sense since a search treating "The Musical Box" as a title ("The" + Proper noun caps) can only be those two things.

I like #3 best. Keeping The Musical Box (song) just so that song title is represented somewhere doesn't seem necessary. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 and 3 are fine with me, and I agree 3 makes most sense. It is a bit odd that someone searching for "The Musical Box" would be interested in the musical box title, as you say, the proper noun can only mean the song or the tribute band. Mdwh (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 implemented. [24] [25] / edg ☺ ☭ 12:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this clearly isn't an encyclopedia article. Addhoc (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as clear POV forking, as is obvious from the nominator's rationale. Nrswanson (talk · contribs) has created a mess of article and template forks. Xe has already once done a bogus copy-and-paste "move" of this particular article. And this is not the only article that xe nominated for deletion on the grounds that xe had written a fork. Edit the existing articles and templates if you think that they are non-neutral. Do not create POV forks. I've tidied up some of the mess. I encourage editors with an interest in these articles to perform cleanup of Falsetto and Voice type, to integrate Nrswanson's text properly. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falsetto[edit]

Delete- This article contains material that is covered in other wikipedia articles, most notably falsetto register. Furthermore, this article fails to incoporate itself with the larger topic of vocal registration and is highly biased towards a vocal pedagological perspective that fails to incorporate the perspective of speech pathologists. In addition some of the information on this page is uncited or comes from suspect sources that lack credibility.Nrswanson (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered merging the two articles initially but the understanding of the term register between the two articles is so different I doubt this is possible. The falsetto article uses some controvercial perspectives on head voice and chest voice which are not widely embraced by the vocal pedagogical community.Nrswanson (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. The article Falsetto register is less than one day old, having previously been a redirect to Falsetto. It is written entirely by Nrswanson (talk · contribs). Why was this done, instead of editing Falsetto, the obvious article for this subject? This resembles an end-run around WP:CONSENSUS. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The new article was written in one day. It can be merged in another. Disputes in content can be discussed on Talk:Falsetto. Keeping these separate because of disagreements on terms and perspective creates by definition a WP:POVFORK. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AFD is not the place to resolve disputes about content. Falsetto should obviously be the primary article and Falsetto register either a more technical article or a redirect. Deletion is not a sensible option. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close AfD and continue discussion on talk pages of relevant articles. There may be a case for separate "Falsetto" and "Falsetto register" articles, but AfD is not the place to decide this. Tevildo (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. per above. Established article that shouldn't be deleted just because the nominator has created another article on the subject. After keeping, a merge would seem sensible.--Michig (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Straight deletion as opposed to merging is too drastic and too soon. There is considerable scope for improving the accuracy and sourcing of the text in Falsetto, but it also has valuable information not currently covered in Falsetto register. Because it specifically concentrates on the use of falsetto in singing and in a relatively less detailed and technical way than does Falsetto register, it is of perhaps greater use to the general reader. I would recommend keeping both, editing them for consistency and cross referencing the articles to each other via a "See also" section or inserting at relevant points each article: {{main|Falsetto register}} {{main|Falsetto}} Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles together total less than 19kb, and overlap. There is no reason they cannot be combined with "general" and "technical" information in different sections. WP:SUMMARY style is not needed here; doing so encourages the WP:POVFORK. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per edg above. AfD is not for content disputes. Lankiveil (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep per everyone and WP:SNOW.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice against recreation if additional claims to notability arise, such as being published in peer-reviewed academic journals or winning more significant awards — Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Carl Rustici[edit]

After having tried to improve this article, I have come to conclusion that it completely fails WP:PROF. In particular: a) the initial claim that he has authored a text book used by 700,000 students is misleading. He wrote a few study guides for an educational video by John Stossel featuring colleague Walter E. Williams. This does not represent a significant academic work b) he has received no substantial secondary coverage, even the Salon piece is a fleeting reference c) no major awards d) the Virginia Institute should be considered a primary rather than secondary source, with a biography that reads like it was supplied by Rustici. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a borderline case but the fact that his stuff has been read by 173,000 students I think makes him notable. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel that way. (In fact, you may be short-shrifting yourself, I think I came across articles suggesting that the number of students who may have viewed the John Stossel video series is much higher). My point is that this is not the same as being a person who "has published a significant and well-known academic work" or whose "collective body of work is significant and well-known" or "is known for originating an important new concept", per WP:PROF. He was simply hired to co-write a few study guides for Stossel's video series, featuring, as the Salon piece points out, his boss. The XXX,000 students aren't reading "his stuff," they're watching Stossel's video. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEW isn't, so far as I know, TCR's boss. And the 700,000 study guides presumably get some use by the teachers and professors who order (& budget for?) them. As I recall, writing a widely used textbook is a specific example at WP:PROF, and this is close enough that I see no reason to increase entropy by dismissing it as a vanity entry. The server space isn't expensive. Andyvphil (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just makes it IMHO. Sensiblekid (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. According to his department's web site he is an "instructor" not a professor. So his notability seems to rest on his teaching accomplishments, always a long shot. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I think he is mostly renowned for his lectures, which have made him a mini-celebrity on campus. He is always looking for the student who will be the next Madison, but it remains to be seen whether he will find him. One thing people seem to be agreed on is that he's very influential on his students. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete writing study guides isn't going to pass WP:PROF, I'd be more swayed by an affiliation with the Cato Institute, if there were any. I don't see enough here to put him near WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. The awards are decidedly minor and oversold. "Inducted in the Who's Who" indeed.... --Crusio (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minicelebrities on a single campus are a good example of the meaning of "non-notable." 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep Participation with "Stossel in the Classroom", publication by Cato, etc., CapMag article... seems someone might want to know who he is, and there's just a bit for the article to pull together. Note the examples in WP:PROF of WP:BIO justification. I don't see how Wikipedia is improved by the deletion of this material. Andyvphil (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few study guides does not meet the bar for inclusion as an author, and his other achievements, while laudable, are not encyclopedic. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF: "An academic who has published...a widely used textbook, or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their(sic?) academic achievements." 700,000 is pretty wide use. Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanispamcruftisement ... beau coup trivial mention citations, but still fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics), IMHO. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May be a borderline case but fails WP:PROF, as detailed by proposer.--Boson (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I'm tempted to put in a sentimental keep because this man was a great teacher of mine, I think we can all agree his achievements aren't encyclopedic. ZG (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Content can be restored to userspace on request. Sandstein (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Names of Kings of Sweden[edit]

The content of this article is already present in articles such as Monarchy of Sweden, List of Swedish monarchs, Anglicization, etc. Although well-intended, it doesn't seem to centre around a cohesive topic that isn't covered at either List of Swedish monarchs or Anglicization. The article simply is not an encyclopedic article and I suggest that the article be deleted and moved to the user's space. Charles 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Addendum: The reference given for the article is the main editor's own work and as such this may constitute original research. Note also WP:SPA, WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT with regard to comments below. Charles 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this article as well, considering that mistresses are usually only encyclopedic when discussed in the context of the kings they "served" and therefore usually require articles if they are indeed notable (rather than lists without sources). Send to user space if necessary. Charles 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and move information to User:J T Demitz/English Names of Kings of Sweden. Charles 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensiblekid (talk • contribs) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is an odd list without obvious usage. I agree with Charles, move it to the user space. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, and no objection to userfying if someone wants to keep this content.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has unique info needed for oral reading and education E Eikner (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a vocabulary. If there exists an article about Swedish king then it is an appropriate place to put the IPA. But not here. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Better to look at 60 different articles to find out about name forms in English rather than see one complete list plus all that valuable explanatory info on the collected subject under one clear heading? Wikipedia can do better than that for its users without being what you call a "vocabulary" (suppose you meant dictionary). E Eikner (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is somebody's personal view on how to anglicize the names of Swedish kings. The names used in Wikipedia are in some cases idiosyncratic and out of touch with anything used by historians, but this "article" explains nothing and solves nothing; it just adds more idiosyncracy. It looks more like the essays I have seen as "subpages" of people's user pages, and that may be a suitable location for the text. Olaus (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source bibliography referred to in the article precludes the validity of any allegation like Olaus's. All those libraries and many more would not have elected to include such "personal views" in their collections. Why is Mr Demitz's distinguished research and generous contribution being insulted by all these anonymous people? Who are they to say such things? Would anyone objective and knowlegeable about English name forms care to comment here? Such as people who have an excellent knowledge of both English and Swedish as synonymous languages, as this author often is appreciated for? He bilingually edits theses for the Royal Caroline Institute and City of Stockholm. Please show him the respect he deserves, i. e. normal such! E Eikner (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article only refers directly to a book by someone who, apparently, is identical to the author of the Wikipedia article. This book appears to be self-published (I can explain why if anyone doubts me) or in any case published with a very minor, non-academic publishing company. The one review mentioned in the article is published in Dala-Demokraten, a provincial newspaper covering the same region where the book was published. Are there any reviews in academic journals? Olaus (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The academics are in the bibliography and the inclusion of the reference book in all those libraries. Those librarians are not all idiots. I can only repeat the request for some objective and knowlegeable input here. How many reviews has Olaus had of his bilingual material in "academic journals"? I venture to say: none whatsoever "(I can explain why if anyone doubts me)" as Olaus writes. Dala-Demokraten is a very respected old, large newspaper in central Sweden that doesn't deserve to be defamed. Mr. Demitz must be getting very uncomfortable by now with Olaus knowing so much (or thinking he does) about him. All we know about Olaus is that he uses that pseudonym and has a page of his own with nothing but a big woodcut showing a drinking bout by Olaus Magnus (1490-1557), who was an entertaining chronicler but by no means a reliable historian. I ask again: for what personal reasons is it so important that this valuable article be deleted from Wikipedia? E Eikner (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to filter the views of real experts through a self-published book of no obvious academic standing. Articles should reference experts directly. And I have to point out that citing a self-published book of your own is bound to put you in the situation of getting your qualifications questioned. As I am not the one doing this, my credentials are irrelevant. Olaus (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It is insulting to write about "real experts" like this to the exclusion of this author. Since Olaus keeps ignoring the crucial word bibliography which is what justifies the standing of the book in question as a valuable reference, I have now scanned p. 188-189 from the book, which I am proud to own a copy of. These pages (of the 8 pages of bibliography in there on p. 181-189), have the expertise listed and the sources of research used re: name forms. Please find the scanned listing below! The book is neither original research nor self-published. Eleven sponsors who financed it are listed on p. 332. The largest were three well known organizations, Ericsson Telecom, ABB and the Swedish Postal Service, all of which took a careful look at the book before it was accepted for sponsorship and the money was paid to the printer enabling it to be published. Ergo, those companies made the publication possible after deciding to support it. (They all gave it to their foreign VIP guests.)

Bibliography listed on p. 188-189 (Demitz speaks and writes his first language, English, plus Swedish, German, French and Spanish, and reads Italian, Latin, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian):

Nordische Personnamen in England, Erik Björkman; Halle, 1910

Continental Germanic Personal Names in Old and Middle English Times, Thorvald Forssner; Upsala, 1916

Norsk Isländska Dopnamn och Fingerade Namn från Medeltiden, E H Lind; Oslo/Upsala/Copenhagen, 1931

The Pre Conquest Personal Names of Doomesday Book, O van Feilitzen; Upsala, 1937

Nordisk Kultur (VII); Personnamn, Assar Janzén; Stockholm/Oslo/¬Copenhagen,1947

Det medeltida Västergötland, Ivar Lundahl; Upsala/Copenhagen, 1961

Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire & Yorkshire, G Fellows Jensen; Copenhagen, 1968

Svenska förnamn, Roland Otterbjörk; Stockholm, 1970

Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, E G Withycombe; Oxford, 1977

Svensk etymologisk ordbok, E Hellquist; Lund, 1948

Svensk uppslagsbok, G Carlquist, J Carlsson et al; Malmö, 1947 1955

Thesaurus Nummorum Sueo Gothicorum, E Brenner; Stockholm, 1731

Sveriges Historia från Äldsta Tid till Våra Dagar J VI), Montelius, Hildebrand, Tengberg, Boëthius, et al; Stockholm, 1877 1881

Den svenska historien (2), G Grenholm, et al; Stockholm, 1966

Sweden: The Nation's History, F D Scott; Minneapolis, 1977

Gillesboken, Helga Lekamens Gille; Stockholm, 1393 1487

Regenter och regeringschefer i Norden, A W Carlsson; Malmö, 1982

Sveriges monarker, S Duhs; Hudiksvall, 1986

Kungar & Drottningar i Sverige, L Lidbeck, B Berg; Stockholm, 1993

The Monarchy in Sweden, Weibull, Palmstierna & Tarras Wahlberg; Stockholm, 1981 & 1995

Danmarks Historie, hvem, hvad, hvornær, B Seocozza & G Jensen; Copenhagen,1994

Debrett's Kings and Queens of Europe, D Williamson; Exeter/London, 1987

Europas Kungahus, L Schubert, R Seelmann Eggebert (K W Avraham); Stockholm, 1995

Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europäischen Staaten (I II), W K Isenburg & F Freytag von Loringhoven; Marburg, 1965

Stammtafeln Europäischen Herrscherhäuser, B Sokop; Vienna, 1993 Nationalencyklopedin, K Marklund, C Engström, et al; Höganäs, 1989¬-1995

The Statesman's Year Book 1994-95, B Hunter et al; London, 1995

Siebmacher's Grosses Wappenbuch (I II), J Siebmacher; Neustadt an der Aisch, 1978 & 1981

Heraldisk Tidsskrift (68), Copenhagen, 1993

E Eikner (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One most note, in consideration of the sources, that a Swedish source, or Swedish derived source, is more likely to prefer a Swedish name than an English one. Charles 04:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Now that we have a milder tone (thank you, sir!) please be more careful! And be fair now! Oxford is in there, so is London (twice!) and a number of other non-Swedish sources. Carl and Maria are the only names Demitz uses (rather that the versions Charles and Mary) when warranted, as modern English names nowadays. All the others in his article are as English as any name ever was, and it took a huge research effort to find all the legitimate versions, so that reading would be as smooth as humanly and legitimately possible in English. E Eikner (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing what material came from those sources, we cannot determine if it is true as to whether or not English sources are using English or Swedish names. As it stands, practice is to use English names for most sovereigns. The article as it stands speaks of Swedes and "non-Swedes", hardly a neutral set of groupings when discussing what are the appropriate names in English. Charles 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You are quoting out of context, sir. That part of the text deals with phonetics in general. E Eikner (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No useful (or, indeed, readable) content that isn't in List of Swedish Monarchs. Tevildo (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the English names of monarchs list; Keep the list of mistresses. I don't see the point of the "English names" article. Any encyclopedic information in it can be combined with List of Swedish monarchs. I easily see the point of having a list of mistresses of the Swedish monarchs: the topic coheres well and serious researchers (or even people just confused about which mistress was which) would find the list useful. Usefulness is a good justification for lists, even if it isn't for articles. And the subject couldn't be covered as well with a category.Noroton (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is repeated from elsewhere in this article consists mainly of the Swedish name forms corresponding with the English ones, most of which are not found anywhere else in Wikipedia. To make the lists complete, known name forms are also included for some of the kings and queens of later centuries. Should we list only those monarchs that had name forms that are less known and exclude the others from the complete list? The information presented to clarify the need for improved knowledge about the legitimate older name forms is based on the lifelong experience regarding problems and solutions of a bilingual and bicultural writer. J T Demitz (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his last entry below (now hidden as a personal disagreement - good idea!) editor Charles wrote re: one of the issues at hand "Carl is an English name but it is not retroactively applied to historical fingers [sic, s.b. figures, I assume] where English usage gives a standard English name." On behalf of many people, Scandinavians and Germans as well as 100% English-speakers, scholars and non-such, young and old, teachers and pupils, I would like to register this emphatic, constructive objection to such a policy, if it really represents the last word from Wikipedia on the matter. All kings of Sweden should be called Carl in English in a modern world which definitely evolved once and for all with the ascension of King Carl XVI Gustaf to the throne in 1973. Carl is a standard English name for use in 2007. E Eikner (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't speak for the masses, I am afraid. "Should" is a matter of your own personal opinion which is not reflected by common English usage. That is what matters. If the best interests of Wikipedia are in mind, are you prepared to make the same argument for Spanish, French, German, etc kings? Charles 04:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Methinks you and I are equally prone to propound and even profess our personal opinions, to be fair. You may not be alone in your opinion about this item. I know I am far from alone in mine. You ask a very good question. It took Demitz some 40 years to find the right answers to some such questions and when I interviewed him about these things, he said he changed his mind in some cases as times and names developed. He feels Carlos is an American English name today, just as well as Charles and Carl are. I think I've seen that English Wikipedia already prefers Louis to Lewis and Louise to Lewissa, so there the old established English names have already been abandoned in favor of French. Why spell Friedrich Frederick in German when that spelling is unheard of there and would only cause trouble for German readers? We could go on for kilometres here, name by name... There are a lot of royals to cover! Believe it or not, the objective here is to try to avoid trouble, not cause it, for the readers of English. E Eikner (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, whether I agree with convention or not, it is convention and has been for centuries. We do not determine comment on Wikipedia based on what Mr Demitz alone believes. Also, speaking of non-native speakers of English, what do they call the historic Swedish kings? We are not writing for Swedes, Germans, etc, to suit their spellings, we are writing and following a set of well-establish English conventions and usage. Simple as that. Charles 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Old conventions often had old reasons, very often totally obsolete ones as we develop our communicating risks and skills. That is the case re: this item. Please stop ridiculing Mr. Demitz, Charles! It should be obvious to you by now that it isn't what he "alone believes". All those admirers of his research are in there with him. He worked very hard to try to document these legitimate and helpful solutions. And many experts think highly of him for it. Why can't you respect that? Do you think Ragnvald Knapphövde makes better reading in English than legitimate Reynold Knobhead? Olov Skötkonung is easier to read in English than legitimate Olaf Scotking? Ragnhild smoother to read and hear than English Ragenilda, Aun den gamle better than Edwin the Old, etc?. That's what you are campaigning about (aside from the odd Charles/Carl item which is not the main issue). And please don't close with condescending and arrogant words like "simple as that" or we'll be back to arguing. Trying to determine the best way to disseminate factual information and wondering how to best educate the young is anything but simple. E Eikner (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal disagreement hidden

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

KeepThe attempt by the author himself to give to Wikipedia his respected results of many years of name research deserves better than these "arguments" by Charles et al. Looks to me and a few friends like something personal rather than rational (sorry!), so I had to log in here. Charles et al cannot have read the article they want to trash, or else they would have seen all the helpful name forms that are not covered by any other Wikipedia article. I have seen the author's 40-year research and files, including the original of a letter to him where H. M. the King of Sweden compliments the material as "very interesting and educational". There are many other such impressive documents and letters that I could quote. The source review mentioned appreciated the name forms especially. Are sweeping arguments such as "rambling" and "bizarre" (see Charles's own page)valid in such a context? Most Swedes do not want any of their kings or princes referred to as Charles anymore. Nor do any modern experts. Wikipedia (so far) has (only) the current king as Carl and should improve in that regard. The article explains why with excellent motivation and also clearly defines the importance of all this information to vocal reading and to the education of the young. I have tried to come up with some rational reason why “Charles” would want this article deleted. The only thing I can think of is that Charles's request stems from a personal wish of his to continue to impose his own name on a number of historical persons where that can no longer be justified. E Eikner (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read up on assuming good faith and civility. Sorry, but we do not cater to Swedes or anyone else. This is English Wikipedia and no one dictates the use of English except Anglophones. You, my friend, need to check your attitude at the door. My name is Charles, not "Charles". Charles being my legal name, of course, although I have a German grandmother who calls me Karl. So much for imposition of a name. Need I mention this incivility on the administrative noticeboard or elsewhere if it is expected to continue? Charles 00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sorry if my theory offended you. Sincerely. It was the only thing we could think of. Really. Give my best to your grandmother, who is probably a very nice lady. I have German roots, too. Most Germans don't want their kings and emperors und alle anderen Fürsten called Charles in English either by the way, when Carl is such a good English name in 2007. What makes you an "Anglophone" - won't you please identify yourself as such? Demitz gets paid huge sums as one, on special projects for organizations that need quality work. Civility, you are asking for? You mean like calling for the deletion of an article because it is (quote you) "A sort of bizarre article ... has a rambling sort of intro"? If we have been lacking in civility, you got that ball rolling, dear sir. Go ahead and "mention" whatever you want to whomever you want. As long as your person takes it as attempts to "dictate" to you when caring people are trying to disseminate knowledge, there's not much I can say. If that's the way Wikipedia works, we newcomers will be happy to trot on off into the sunset and leave you Anglophones in total control of the range. E Eikner (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but it really does not matter what Germans or Swedes want, it is what is English which matters on English Wikipedia. I would be the very last person to complain about whatever the Germans and Swedes want to do on those respective Wikipedias. If Mr Demitz gets paid huge sums of money for his work, that is fine. That doesn't mean it is suited for Wikipedia, however. Again though, is this a vanity article of the author's own work? It could also possibly be considered original research. At any rate, the naming of the Swedish kings is best suited in their respective articles and in parentheses following their listing at List of Swedish monarchs. I also have to call into question WP:SPA, WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT given your expression of personal familiarity of with the author who is presenting his research here. Charles 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Vanity article"? So much for civility Mr. Charles. There you go again, and civility went right out the window. And then you put the screws on your civility with "WP:SPA, WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT". Nice! It is important to you personally that this article be deleted. Why don't you be a real civil gentleman and admit it? You are British, I am pretty safe to assume. And you will never admit that Carl is a name in English nowadays, because you just want that Charles of yours in there as the only real way to put the name in English. Guess we better change Carl XVI Gustaf back to Charles ... again to suit you? He's a Swede, so you don't care about him anyway. With all due respect (to someone I know nothing about at all), I'll bet Demitz is more of an Anglophone that you are, sir, regardless of pay. (Sorry I was vain for him and mentioned that!) He is trying to tell you about easy-to-read and easy-to-hear legitimate English names for all these individuals. He's an American citizen, and yes - should I be ashamed to admit that many of us here in Stockholm and all over the world know of him and know his fine work? Will it hurt our cause with the article if you do some sleuthing and manage to confirm that I have met him? Heaven forbid that people should stick up for each other! Go ahead, Mr. Charles, and use that against me and this article, too! I'm about to give up on you anyway. On your page, you complain extremely bitterly about all the people that you think have been nasty to you. I wonder why? And you threatened to stop editing royalty. That was a very good idea, if you want all English to be British or not at all. Wikipedia in English is meant to be able to be used by all the people in the world who can communicate in and grasp this fabulous international language. And a vast majority of the ones that have English as their first language haven't been situated on those gorgeous British Isles for quite some time now. My company has all the statistics on that one. E Eikner (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes: I didn't nominate this article because I am personally insensitive to any singular group. I respect what Swedish Wikipedia does but I am concerned with what English Wikipedia does. You make many, many assumptions. Carl is an English name but it is not retroactively applied to historical figures where English usage gives a standard English name. That my name is Charles is merely a coincidence; I personally would love if everyone in Germany accepted me as "Karl" in Germany or as "Carl" in Sweden. Really, I would. Do not make bets, this is not a house of gambling. You could very well lose if you had any idea of what you were making assumptions about. If he is trying to tell us about easy-to-read and easy-to-hear legitimate English names, he would be more than welcome to contribute to the individual articles on English kings, provided there are sources and no original research. I do not have the time --- or the desire --- to play the bit of detective and determine what sort of relationship you have to Mr Demitz. The only concern is disruption to Wikipedia and the breaking of policy. If you want to talk about people being nasty to me, you are more than welcome to post on my talk page about the matter and I will discuss it with you. My main problem is one thing that a user perpetuates something to use against me (like you are doing, bringing up the past), which another user will probably bring up later, but now with your bringing up my past added to that and so on, forever and ever presumably. But not here, it is not on-topic to the matter at hand. Also, since you note content on my talk page, I suggest you read a little more. Wikipedia in English is meant for everyone who speaks English and wishes to read it, not just Swedes who speak English. Charles 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Charles is attempting to use the fact that a distinguished author wants to give some of his respected work to Wikipedia as an argument for his (Charles's) deletion campaign. The same bias is prevalent in the other far-fetched complaints above. The deleters that have signed in below are just as likely to be Charles's personal friends. How do we know with all this anonymity? Is it detrimental for people to identify themselves like gentlemen/women here? Why is everybody so anonymous? E Eikner (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article about names. My chief concern is the fact these deletion suggestions were joined together, imo artificially and improperly. Therefore I join my opinion also. Of course, it would be nicer, were the "translator" to add aspects and reasoning about those names and research of them to appropriate articles of names. Henq (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article about mistresses. Notable knowledge, and there is enough connection because of historical treatment. Besides, fulfills the criteria of a List article. Henq (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article about mistresses. Reasonably factual. All these persons are known to history, though the nature of the list would tend to make absolutely reliable source material a utopian desire. The heading might appropriately be changed to add "Alleged and Recognized..." (I don't know how to do that). A list like this is always educational and inspirational toward more research. J T Demitz (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lack of WP:V. Pigman☿ 05:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gold[edit]

Contested CSD; it was tagged for notability concerns. Brought here for further consensus. Keilana_(recall) 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem notable per my research. Sensiblekid (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how this goes before deleting it. —B o L 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that there are many articles with the same format and notability on wikipedia, and this article supports those in a more current state, i.e. Jewish Defense League and Shelley Rubin. This article is necessary if the section for Kahanism is to stay at all relevant and current. This article must be an example to see how we should best update the Kahanist section with today's more influential Kahanists. AniChai (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear notable, no notable references (mainstream media, news outlets?) on the article. And WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason to keep an article. alex.muller (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable activist, no independent sources indicating that he's particularly notable as far as Kahanists go. Lankiveil (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. I don't see any encyclopedic notability here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless there are some actual third party references referring to him particularly as having done something notable individually. DGG (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the media does not know about someone does not mean they do not do important things. 71.57.186.45 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Austin Powers in Goldmember. While there are substancial numbers for keeping the article the issues of notability and reliable sourcing havent been addressed. According to WP:FICTION The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop.. There isnt any substancial coverage in relaible sources of "Goldmember" in the articles linked during the afd or the from those already in the article Gnan garra 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmember[edit]

This article is about a non-notable character (as being a character in a hollywood movie does not necessarily make you individually notable) that has no references or notability, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition which should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lead villain in a motion picture named after him. I think that meets WP:N. Doc Strange (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a likely search term, it makes more sense to turn the article into a redirect for Austin Powers in Goldmember than to delete it, if it is not notable. J. Spencer (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major character in very notable film. BJ^Talk 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many less-notable movie characters who have articles to which no one has objected. Sensiblekid (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not a valid argument. TJ Spyke 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Keep, because the article is about a notable fictional character. Sensiblekid (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this even nominated? Tavix (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you have no reason why it should be kept? Because admins will (and should) ignore replies like yours since you aren't offering any reason. TJ Spyke 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that people instincts were correct; there are secondary sources out there. Their arguments should have been accompanied by sources, since instinct is not a reliable source. In the end, it's always about the sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone, but Doc Strange in particular if I had to pick, I guess. Maxa megalon 2000 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes he was one of the villians in the movie, but that's the only thing this character is known for. The article also cites no sources and is written in-universer (so it violates WP:V and WP:INUNIVERSE). TJ Spyke 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not a reason for deletion per WP:EP. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found many mentions of the character in reviews of the movie. [26] Ebert [27] [28] [29] [30]. Basically the reviewers hated the character, but that is irrelevant. The article needs cleanup, and these sources added. For those of you who argued to retain the article above, my trick to finding these sources was to go to rottentomatoes.com and open up the reviews. It is much easier than a Google search. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough for notability, we need how he developed the character and stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: being discussed at all is sufficient to demonstrate notability. You're asking that it fulfil WP:WAF, which is not a guideline that covers deletion reasons, rather than WP:FICT. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the sources do more than mention the character, they talk about Myers' inspiration from the Goldfinger character, describe him physically, discuss his role in the film, and review Mike Myers characterization of him. They are classic secondary sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough for an article, though if I'm honest, instinct says that this article should be called Goldmember (character) and Goldmember should redirect to the film of the same name (or a disambig page). alex.muller (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- All you keep voters except AnteaterZot, please re-read the nominating rationale as you are ignoring it, I am not asking for your assurances it is notable, I am asking for some references, at this point some concept and creation style info on how the character was conceived and performed. That is what will keep it from deletion, not a horde of keep votes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The keep "votes" you decry are just as sensible as all those "delete-not notable comments that show up in most AFDs. Double standard you want to apply, don't ya?VivianDarkbloom (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect The character only appears in the one film and the majority of the article is just repeating plot points from the film. The character is covered more than adequately in the film article. I'm a big fan of Austin Powers/Mike Myers, but I don't see how anyone can claim this character is notable enough to justify his own article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. ——Quasirandom (speak) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only repeating plot points is not a reason to delete, but rather per official policy a reason it needs to be expanded with critical responses to the character, to demonstrate his notability. Note also that how Meyers developed the character is not necessary for keeping the article, only for whether it meets the criteria for being FA. Not fulfilling WP:WAF is not cause for deletion. Not meeting WP:FICT is, however, and AnteaterZot has more or less demonstrated this. I'd be happier with more in-depth coverage, though, so I'm a weak keep. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources exist and the character is notable. Being unreferenced isn't a sufficient reason for deletion; the article must be impossible to reference or clean up. Rray (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect . Insufficient real-world significance to merit an individual article per WP:FICT. There is nothing here that cannot be covered at the main article. Eusebeus (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete/Redirect Per WP:FICT, fictional elements (e.g. characters) should be covered in the work of fiction they appear in, almost always independent of their own notability. Goldmember is "just" a character in a movie, and (t)his article shouldn't exist until it has become too long for the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you must be kidding me. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a friendly reminder, most admins will ignor comments like yours since you are just voting keep without offering a reason why. It's no different than just saying "Keep" and signing. TJ Spyke 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've added a reference for the inspiration of the character, not sure if it's really enough though.RMHED (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable title character of major motion picture. Alansohn (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like Goldmember, hes cool. -- 213.112.91.114 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Alansohn has eloquently put, this is a notable title character. We write articles about notable title characters, this one is no different. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn--Cube lurker (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The majority of the article is plot retelling, with a production detail that would be equally suited at Austin Powers in Goldmember without having a separate article character. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A title character in a blockbuster. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 09:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn nomination by redirect. Non-administrator close. Rt . 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pea Ridge, Florida[edit]

The only evidence for Pea Ridge, Florida is Wikipedia itself. There are a Pea Ridge Elementary School and Pea Ridge Church in Santa Rosa County, but they appear to be named for Pea Ridge, a ridge (according to the USGS GNIS[31]). There are some mentions of a Pea Ridge in blogs, forums and real estate ads, but I don't see any reliable sources. That would make this article unverifiable. Donald Albury 03:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on MapQuest or Google Maps, the only relevent hit on Google is from answers.com (which is a mirror of Wikipedia). Seems to be a hoax. TJ Spyke 04:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I can't imagine how we could have a recognised community without the GNIS being unaware of it; the database is always being updated, so surely they would have realised it if there were such a community there. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my opinion to Redirect in light of this research noted below. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keeper Apparently, Pea Ridge is an unincorporated, suburban area in Florida that has built up in the recent years. Topozone shows a church and school, as noted, close to the ridge mentioned. It may be a local name, but not an official name.Someone who lives in the immediate vicinity would have to verify it's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwalker (talk • contribs) 04:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see, Pea Ridge Elementary is in Pace. Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pace, Florida was called "Pea Ridge" in the 1910 Census, but was called Pace by 1912, according to this and this. The only people who believe that there's a community called "Pea Ridge" are (a) someone going by the name of "John Butler" who set up a, now defunct, web site (which is hyperlinked to in the old, deleted, version of the article) in what was apparently an attempt to invent it (the web site was campaigning for a sign to be added to the highway); and (b) the Santa Rosa County Fire Department, which took this 2004 text, after it had been copy edited in 2006, from the Wikipedia entry on Santa Rosa County, Florida and copied it almost word-for-word into its March 2007 Strategic Plan. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pace, Florida, as an obsolete name for that place. Lankiveil (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect as per Uncle G's research. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I now support Redirect. -- Donald Albury 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, satisfies notability criteria by virtue of a charting single. --Stormie (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawty Lo[edit]

Non-notable rapper Mhking (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable. This musician sold a gold album. See Down for Life. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Down for Life article produces nothing about Shawty Lo. Tavix (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a former member of the band that made Down for Life, so may pass WP:MUSIC#6. But more importantly, has a charting single on his own (criterion #2). Rigadoun (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to satisfy notability criterion #2 under WP:MUSIC - Dumelow (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could the closing admin please take into account the comments on the page's talk page. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Billboard link indicates a charted single, which meets criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the charting on Billboard makes this person "notable" by the Wikipedia definition. The article otherwise needs work. Lots of work. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He actually has WP:MUSIC covered in numerous ways: he's a member of a notable group (and this variety of notability is inherited), his single charted on a national chart, his record was placed in regular rotation, he (with his band) has a gold record. Easy keep. Xymmax (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romapada Swami[edit]

Does not appear to be notable--all references are to ISKCON (Hare Krishna) web pages. A sampling of 20 web hits found no reliable sources. Matchups (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There isn't a specific WP:BIO for religious leaders, but I would have thought that responsibility for a significant part of the USA is prima facie grounds for notability. (We also have "significant cult following" under the "Entertainers" section of WP:BIO, but let's not go there. :) ). The ISKON sites, I think, can be regarded as WP:RS for issues pertaining to that faith's administrative structure - would we delete a Roman Catholic bishop if his article was only sourced from the Vatican? I doubt it. Tevildo (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine about accepting ISKCON sites as RS's for facts about ISKCON and its leaders, but not as evidence of notability, same as an individual's web page, or the Vatican's for that matter. Keep in mind that the rules for notability mention independent coverage. Matchups (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The primary author left this comment on my (Matchups's) talk page:

Aak. You're right. I don't have any 3rd party sources for Romapada. But I am trying to find one- I am getting a book soon that may provide this information. So please give me some mercy! David G Brault (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hold for a few days while it may be rescued. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Romapada Swami has been heavily involved with ISKCON since it's very early days, and is a member of it's Governing Body council. As a western Swami with responsibilities across USA I would say that there is definitely some good ground in favour of keeping the article. However, I'm witholding my vote untill more evidence can be found, and to avoid my own personal bias in this matter. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In looking for sources, be aware that, as Sanskrit transliterations can vary in English spelling, his name can also be spelled Romapad, Ramopad, Ramopada, and similar variations. Unfortunately, Monkey on a Stick: Murder, Madness, and the Hare Krishnas by John Hubner, Lindsey Gruson - Religion - 1988, is not available in Google Book preview. However, I'm pretty sure he's mentioned in the book, as well as in some of the writings of E Burke Rochford (who does turn up on Google books [32]). Romapad was not one of the original ISKCON initiating gurus, so coverage of him will not be as extensive as those who have seniority and scandals. Actually, among original GBC members he stands out for, AFAIK, being surprisingly scandal-free and actually dedicated to the religion. The article needs to have his real name and more bio info to be WP-worthy, though. ISKCON as a movement does have a degree of diversity, sects and schisms, so I don't think every source connected with ISKCON in some manner is necessarily the same as, say, his personal website. That said, Vaisnava Network News search turns up a bunch of articles that mention him, if anyone wants to dig through them for sourcing and content: http://www.google.com/custom?q=Romapada&sa=Google+Search&domains=vnn.org&sitesearch=vnn.org - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are actually a bunch of non-ISKCON g-hits. I've added a bit of sourcing from a blurb at the Penn State Vedic Society, and some ELs to videos and podcasts of him giving classes (I think one is in Kazhakstan, but I'm not sure). Add all his guest lecture gigs to the mentions I recall from Rochford and/or Hubner, and I'd say this is probably worth keeping, assuming it can be expanded from more third-party sources. I found some possible scandals among the VNN articles, so anyone more attached to working on the article may want to look into those as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dr Rowland[edit]

Doesn't seem notable to me, just a YouTube video. Google search brings up nothing of note. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per criterion A7. Keilana_(recall) 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen city Independent[edit]

Not notable; just trying to promote themselves. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not asserted by article and no third-party references for verification per WP:V. Article written like an advertisement (WP:SPAM). Mh29255 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article will soon be pwned by the criteria for speedy deletion as I've tagged it as A7. No third-party sources cited.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And four hours later, the article has still not been deleted.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Mosher

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gwernol (talk · contribs) and Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs) 16 minutes apart, both per CSD A7. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Mosher[edit]

Not notable; google search turns up nothing. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be notable; it's a borderline speedy and I wouldn't be surprised if the author is the subject himself. I (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Violates WP:N, WP:V, and I would bet dollars to doughnuts this is actually WP:HOAX. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per comments by LonelyBeacon. Mh29255 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete looks hoaxish, is not wiki style, even if was true - does not seem notable. Pundit|utter 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Probably a vanity page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, probably a vanity page as above. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a hoax. Never claims notability or any reason why the person in question would be famous. Violates WP:NONSENSE, WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:NFT along with the aforementioned WP:HOAX Doc Strange (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Seems to me like a hoax, and only 99 irrelevant pages turn up on Google. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. doesn't show how the topic is notable (probably because the topic is not noteable and more of a hoax or nonsense). Frank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 01:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, "mailed himself to America"? Obvious nonsense. Lankiveil (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Gracie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs) per CSD A7. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Gracie[edit]

The band doesn't look that notable. A Google search doesn't show much notability. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Article about a band lacks assertion of notability, per nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Aside from a MySpace and YouTube entry, there is nothing in cyberspace on this group. Violates WP:V and WP:BAND notability requirements. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete seems like yet another myspace garage band. In the current state article does not ascertain notability. Pundit|utter 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete : no notability per WP:N or WP:MUSIC, and no verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 03:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Share[edit]

Article is about an announced film project that does not meet the notability guidelines for future films. The project was revealed in the summer of 2005, and there has been no progress with it since. There's no telling if the project will enter production, but if it does, I have no issue with recreation. In the meantime, though, the lack of significant coverage and guarantee of a full-fledged film article doesn't warrant an article on this meek prospect. To the closing admin, if the result is deletion, the redirects Time Share (film) and Time Share (2006 film) should be deleted as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:NFF. There seem to be no reliable sources to show that this film meets the notability guidelines, and it does not meet the guidelines for film articles. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While imdb.com is not a good source, it usually will include information such as "director" and "official site", which it does not. Attempts to find a site or information other than "proposed project" was not found. Fails WP:NFF. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Mh29255 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it can be revived, when becomes more real. Pundit|utter 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Later...Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of sources Frank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Timeshare, I think it's plausible that someone could think it's two words instead of one. TJ Spyke 02:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "Hilarious hi-jinks ensue!". Uh-huh. Either a hoax or WP:CRYSTAL. Lankiveil (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I've placed the headline on the AFD's talk page to authenticate that such a project was announced and also for later usage if production ever starts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-has no merits and doesn't follow the guidelines for film pages. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeshare per TJ Spyke. Tevildo (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - fails WP:NFF, and redirect to Timeshare. Macy's 123 review me 16:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- doesn't meet WP:MOVIE since it's not yet in production -- and add any relevant information to either the articles about the actors concerned or, my second choice, to an article about the topic of timeshares. (My suggestion is that films like this are usually just a WP:COATRACK for jokes and not about the topic per se.) And if you ever see me going into this movie, mercy-killing would be appropriate. "Hilarious hi-jinks" indeed. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "I doubt its going to be produced any time soon, and the stub right now is pretty useless 76.196.36.174 (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. jj137 ^♠ 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tooele Federal Credit Union[edit]

Does not appear to be meeting our notability standards, at present. Tagged for notability most of this year. Lawrence Cohen 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not seem to be the subject of Reliable Sources. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 00:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete : possible WP:COPYVIO with page http://www.tfcu.net/info/history.php, from which it is obvious that some of the text in this article was copied. Mh29255 (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and poorly sourced. Frank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable credit union. Fails WP:CORP and is badly sourced. Lankiveil (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
NO OBJECTION - I created the page. I have no objection to its being deleted. I thought there would be other additions to it from other sources. That did not happen, so let's send it to the dustbin. Raymondwinn (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Creator agrees -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lumber Cartel[edit]

The result was withdrawn by nominator — it looks like Dhartung did manage to find some reliable and non-trivial sources. The article still needs cleaning up, but now should not have to be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 01:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Self-referential Usenet silliness with lack of reliable sources. The external links are highly questionable: Usenet posts, a couple of joke sites, a dead link to an alleged article in Gambling Magazine (whatever that is; it doesn't have a Wikipedia entry). The article in Wired would usually be a reliable source, except that this one has a specific disclaimer at the top saying some of the information could not be verified. The Salon entry mentions it once, in passing: "Some anti-spammers, who have loosely grouped themselves under the name the Lumber Cartel, are already calling for retaliation against the DMA and its members." We're writing an article based on this? It may have passed muster a couple of years ago, but Wikipedia should have outgrown the Internet-inside-baseball crap by now. *** Crotalus *** 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Content is not verifiable in reliable sources, and notability is tenuous at best. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added two book citations that are more than passing mentions. Though largely forgotten today, this was notable once, and notability does not expire. --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias McConnell[edit]

Non-notable actor with very few credits listed under IMDB, and none of any significance. Contested speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are still some IMDB entries for this person, also message board discussion over at IMDB. Not much filmography but still notable I think. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb has entries for almost anyone who's been in any movies or TV shows, no matter how minor their part (i.e. they could just be standing in the background as an extra and get a entry). TJ Spyke 00:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merely having an IMDB entry does not make one notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN actor who's only had very minor roles in a handful of movies. TJ Spyke 00:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actor had one of the leading role in the notable movie Elephant directed by Academy Award nominated Gus Van Sant, he has also been featured as a model in several notable fashion magazines. --Trimax (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What is verifiable? Again, merely having an IMDB entry, while an elememt in verification, does not by itself confer notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, supporting actor in a prize-winning film. Notable enough, if only just. Lankiveil (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Imdb shows that he had at least once principal role in a noteworthy film (I am speaking of Elephant) satisfying the additional criteria for actors in WP:BIO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Shawn in Montreal. matt91486 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scoobra Kadoobra[edit]

An episode of The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. Besides the fact that it's an article on, for Pete's sake, an episode of Scooby-Doo, the only content is a synopsis of the episode's plot. And I'm pretty certain that you're not going to get much more content than that. FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and 23 Skidoobra per above. Since there's nothing notable about the episode itself, and the article has served its purpose of letting someone enhance their writing skills, take it down. There will be some who say that every episode of a TV series should have its own article in an encyclopedia because the its an episode of a notable TV series is notable (tough sell on 13 Ghosts of Scooby Doo). By that reasoning, however, we should have individual articles about each chapter of the book Gone With the Wind. This can be merged back into the article about the show. Mandsford (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That GWTW is a bad example. Each chapter of the book is part of 1 story. That is not the case with most TV shows (24 is one of the few exceptions since each season is supposed to be 1 day broken up into 24 parts, so it's just like how 2 part episodes have 1 article). TJ Spyke 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it would be very difficult to argue that this episode had any impact in the wider world. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo, per WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles. Trimmed-down plot synopses can be incorporated into the list of episodes in that article, just as they are in List of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! episodes. DHowell (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinka financial controversy[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT NEWS Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It says there "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial," and you don't get more substantial that the source on this article. Neither is this a one time thing this has been continuing for over 10 years according to the FBI. Lobojo (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, the article has sources from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and many others. These are not minor articles either but are major 1000+ word by-lined articles individaully researched and reported. This is a major controversy in the Jewish world and beyond. This way just on DRV where the closer supported the creation of an article under this heading. Lobojo (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did not such thing. He said that it wouldn't be a BLP issue to create such an article which was the reason for the deletion of the previous one. He did not say he supports anything. Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a very serious subject that will have lasting importance. It is not something that just happened one day. It is the end product of an alleged ten-year scheme of fraud and may bring down five important charities and a notable dynasty of religious leaders. It is also important in the context of the history of Hassidic sects in America and their relation to the secular world.Wikidemo (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more than merely news - although cites from NY Times, LATimes, and UPI wire news must count for something. Major, possibly ongoing, scandal. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Though Lobojo's continuing choice of Jewish Rabbi scandal articles for creation continues to concern me, it is reliably sourced. I do wonder, though, if the participants are sufficiently notable to have an article about this scandal in Wikipedia. Jeffpw (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Lobojo's choice of articles makes me wonder whether he has a hidden agenda here. Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you got me ChocolatePizza. I hate beards. Lobojo (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When people question another editor's motives in selecting topics to write about, it runs contrary to the requirement to avoid personal attacks and to assume good faith until and unless the editor in question demonstrates a trend departing from neutral point of view editing. Please discuss the article and do not delve into the inner workings of the mind of the person who created the article. Edison (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - We cannot delete Mike Hucabee's biography because he is in the news. Spinke Rebbe is a Grand Rabbi and should have had an article long before User Lobojo started this article, but better late than never. Thanks--יודל (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish Wikipedia:Notability. Alansohn (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Spinka (Hasidic dynasty) article as sad as this topic may be. The Spinka (Hasidic dynasty) article is fairly short and this should and could be merged into it. It would be a legitimate sub-heading of "Spinka financial controversy." Why hasn't anyone thought of this obvious solution so far? It's not as if this is on the scale of the Lewinsky scandal that needed a separate article from the Presidency of Bill Clinton article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because this scandal has nothing to do with the Spinke dynasty over all, and Monica Lewinsky has everything to do with Bill Clinton. - This article must be renamed into Naftule Tzvi Wies, because Spinka is bigger than this one Rabbi and his Institutions. Thanks--יודל (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No. Articles on the English wikipedia do not get non-English names. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A name of a person is the same if its in English or in Yiddish. I beg to rename this article to the name of the person not to his 1 sin, he is bigger than this one story.--יודל (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the...!?!?! IZAK, I made the suggestion several days to merge the content into the main Spinka (Hasidic dynasty) article several ago at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 24#Naftali Tzvi Weisz to which you responded at this edit with a resounding oppose that a merge proposal "would be very unencyclopedic because then what would we do with all the articles in Category:Hasidic rebbes -- just merge them into the dynasties they head?" Did you actually type "Why hasn't anyone thought of this obvious solution so far?" or has someone hijacked your account? Was there a little something extra in the cholent this Shabbos? Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alansohn for you vigilance, I was waiting for someone to ask this question. Let me explain. I voted to "keep" the original article on Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Weisz, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naftali Tzvi Weisz, because by being the Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty he is automatically notable. Period, there should be no question about this. The big problem of course was that it was written as an attack article and I disagree with that style and method and my suggestion was to find and add non-controversial information about this Rebbe, the institutions he heads and the good work he has done. It should be possible to locate and do this. However the push was to delete and before that happened someone suggested moving the biography of this Rebbe into the article about the Spinka Hasidic dynasty, which I opposed, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 24, simply because, so far, biographies of Rebbes, when created, remain separate to the "dynasty articles" they are attached to (see Category:Hasidic dynasties vs. Category:Hasidic rebbes.) The situation here however is different, since the article under review, as it is named, is about an event, the Spinka financial controversy (and again, its contents could and must be written from a NPOV and non-attack style), and it is not a biography, so that in this case there should be no objection in merging what is now a confirmed (sadly negative) historical event into the article that describes the rise and history of this particular dynasty. So to sum up, I opposed a motion to merge a biography of a Rebbe with the general article about his dynasty's history. On the other hand I support a merge of an article about certain key events into the article about the dynasty. Obviously, if an article about the Rebbe would reappear, these events would be mentioned there as well and editors would have to decide where the main story should be, but at no point have I opposed a point blank deletion of anything in this set of cases since this story is big and has had and will continue to have wide reportage and cannot be ignored, inspite of its "newsiness". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is better than using the persons name, because precisely of BLP--and he was not the only person involved. . (If it were under the persons name, that his name is nonEnglish is no reason not to use it) DGG (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep in mind there is only 1 prominent notable leader in this case, and thats the 'Grand Rabbi Of Spinke'. I am very troubled and bothered that Jews who trusted him must be shamed here they aren't public figures. As a Hareidi Jew i can tell u openly that we abide by our rabbis, first and foremost, although the law of the land must be upheld but not if its contradicting Torah Leaders. If my rabbi takes from me money and gives it back i will do it. - and if my name comes up in a police report i expect Wikipedia community to guard my privacy. Please rename this article to the Rabbis name because only he is the real Notable subject here what matters to the public domain all of his followers incriminated here must not be mentioned. Lets face it if the Grand Rabbi wasn't involved here this story would have never be known to us--יודל (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a Spinka controversy but Rabbi Weiszs', which requires this to be moved to N T Weiss which violates a few more Policies, which means that it doesn't belong on WP. This article has been recreated by Lobojo to work around the deletion of the previous one. WP is an encyclopedia and not a news paper. There is no such thing as Spinka financial controversy, this is a made up term by Lobojo to work around the deletion.--Shmaltz (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly. The Weiszs article was improperly deleted out of process against consensus, and we got a bad deletion reveiew result also against consensus. There is no BLP reason why this material does not belong here. It is a notable controversy over the alleged (and likely) misuse of Spinka charities by a prominent Rabbi to perpetuate a massive tax fraud and money laundering scheme. Many people, Jews apparently, close to Hassidism, have said that this is an important event about important people, not some random news story. Take your pick - the issue is about Rabbi Weisz, or it is about his Spinka charities. In that five related spinka charities are at the center it is fair to say it is about Spinka and about Spinka charities. To delete well-sourced encyclopedic content simply because it casts negative light on a Hassidic Jewish sect, charities, and individuals for (allegedly) having committed grievous illegal acts is censorship and an assault on this project.Wikidemo (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't really need consensus, since it was blatantly against policy. It's not BLP, it's WP:NOT, so far it's just a news story under a made up terminology. Rabbi Weiszs' name is not made up but Spinka financial controversy is, someone made it up to be able to put that news story in it. It's an alleged misuse of some of over a dozen Spinka charities, out of that over a dozen, he is the rabbi (or grand rabbi) of only one. This is NOT encyclopedic content on it's own, this is encyclopedic content only within another article, however the main Spinka article cannot be that one, since it's for over a dozen Spinka rebbes. Find an article where there is significant other content, that relates only to Rabbi Weiszs' Spinka and I agree it's encyclopedic content.--Shmaltz (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not against policy. You say it is, I say it is not. Therefore we need consensus. Otherwise I can just recreate it and say you are wrong. You can delete it and say I am wrong. I will recreate it again, and then we are in an edit war. That is not the way to handle things on Wikipedia. That is why we have procedures and not just content policy. People reviewed the rules and agreed that this is more than a news story. When most people, arguing reasonably, say that something agrees with policy and should be kept, or that an administrative decision was made wrongly, it is not up to those with the minority view to act on their own.Wikidemo (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point, if you understand what you wrote, why don't you recreate it?--Shmaltz (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has three kinds of rules, expressed in its policies and guidelines: (1) content rules, about what material should be in the encyclopedia; (2) behavioral rules, about what people may or may not do; and (3) procedural rules, about how people are supposed to reach decisions when they do not agree on something. The Rabbi's article was nominated for deletion as a mixed question of notability and BLP violations. Both WP:N (and the subsidiary WP:NOT issue) and WP:BLP are content rules. They say some material is allowed, and some is not. If everybody agreed the article is allowed or not allowed there would be nothing to resolve. But some believed the article is allowed and others believed it is not. The procedural rules tell us how to resolve the question. The rules that apply most directly to this situation are those for consensus, speedy deletion (CSD), and for AfD. We had a discussion according to the consensus rules and the consensus was that it should be kept. CSD has no provision for deleting an article under the circumstances. AfD required the closing administrator to follow the consensus. The administrator said he was ignoring consensus because he believed the content rules prohibited the article. There was no principle behind his decision other than that he believed he is right. We had a deletion review that was supposed to resolve this, but the administrator closing that did the same thing. Even though the majority of people felt the original decision was wrong and did not follow procedure, he believed personally it was right. When people do not follow the procedure there is no way to resolve disputes. It simply becomes an issue of who will delete or create articles. It is incorrect to say that adding the material is an attempt to get around the earlier decision. The earlier decision is not made validly so there is no mechanism for following it. Even if it were made correctly it applies only to that specific article, not the entire subject matter. The administrator closing the discussion said explicitly that the outcome would not affect any new article devoted specifically to the controversyWikidemo (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: The administrator closing the discussion said explicitly that the outcome would not affect any new article devoted specifically to the controversy end quote. The nominator of that afd said the same and even beyond, that within that article it could stay as well as long as that article is an article. With the content of any article being just this story it matches the criteria of WP:NOT which is why this was nominated again. Which is why I keep saying it should be deleted, since WP is NOT a newspaper, all that article is doing is recording one well sourced event, that is not even 2 weeks old.--Shmaltz (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, at most Merge with Spinka (Hasidic dynasty). Culturalrevival (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but should be renamed, Spinka Charity Tax Fraud or Spinka Charity Scandal. Chesdovi (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Originally voted delete some time back (other afd). But now its sourced, NPOV, no BLP issues, andnotability re: topic matter is established. MBisanz 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well sourced, enough to stand alone. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I argued for a keep on the deleted article, the community said otherwise and the original speedy-delete occurred and the deletion review failed under the provision "cover the event, not the person." in WP:BLP. This article is on the event; the source quality for the article is very high, and there is no issue of non-notability. In addition, because the event has cultural and historical significance which makes it more than random news, WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is the correct way to handle such material , under BLP--not under the name of one of the criminals. DGG (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article appears well-sourced, and focuses on an event of some note. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=IKgoAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22lokata%22+radar&q=%22lokata%22+radar+exocet&pgis=1#search

[1]