Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

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

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

Skips (snack)[edit]

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

Strong Delete- Just a snack food, does not assert any significance. LukeTheSpook (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep-tagger used improper tag and set this up to be speedied, which I have removed. Procedural keep for improper nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soviet and Russian leaders by height[edit]

This list is the epitome of trivia. It collects a number of factoids that have no significance whatsoever to the historical significance of the subjects. What does it matter that Yeltsin was 8 cms taller than Andropov? The height of Soviet and Russian leader warrants only a very brief mention in each individual article. Nothing more, nothing less. This is interesting stuff to put in someone's userspace, but doesn't belong in the mainspace. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable trivia, serves no real purpose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, and what possible use could this article serve? Am I being U.S.-centric? Is this a cultural factor in Russia? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced trivia just about sums it up. ukexpat (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Guiness Wiki Book of world records? Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an indiscriminate list of info Bfigura ^(talk) 02:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the fact it's completely unsourced and likely unverifiable, what possible use could this have? 23skidoo (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: OMFG. I suppose someone could come up with a List of Seychellois government ministers by hip measurement, but short of that, this definitely is the non-notable winner of the month. I'm not sure what is scarier; that this article survived for a year before AfD or that from the creator's history (he's sure as heck no SPA) it's a good faith effort. RGTraynor 13:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia that cannot be used in an encyclopedia as it is completely unreferenced. No significance. Razorflame (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivially trivial trivia Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:TRIVIA is a style guideline, not a content guideline. This article is clearly unencyclopedia, but please use appropriate guidelines to support your nomination. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okaythen, it's unencyclopedic and irrelevant (just what does height have to do with anything)? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL, er Delete. Completely unencyclopaedic, non-notable and irrelevant list of info. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, verfiable, and organized). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this unreferenced page as I read a very detailed article on Wikipedia concerning the heights of US Presidents. I thought it would be a good idea to the same thing for Russia but I should have added the relevant links. The problem is that they were scattered all over the internet (as well as offline sources such as the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper). If anyone knows a good source which contains all the relevant data I would be glad to correct the article if necessary. Otherwise, I would have to agree that the best option is to delete my article.Abc85 (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete height is too arbitrary a criteria for a list.-- danntm ^T _C 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I hate to peddle otherstuffexists, but there is literally an article of the US presidents by height. It is the same exact article for another country. If this (the russian) article can be brought up to speed with sources (online or otherwise), then it deserves to be kept, just as the Us president list does. Remember, just because it is another country than a good percentage of the english speakers here doesn't make it funny or trivial. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about US presidents demonstrates that the idea of height has played a significant role in scientific and historical studies. See the sections "The taller man wins?", "Further reading" and "References". There is no indication whatsoever that this is the case for Russia. The only factoid about Russian leaders that has received some attention is their hair: Alexander III was bald, Nicholas II had hair, Lenin was bald, Stalin had hair, Khrushchev was bald, Brezhnev had hair, Andropov was bold, Chernenko had hair, Gorbachev was bald, Yeltsin had hair, Putin is more or less bald, Medvedev has hair. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only part of that article demonstrates that. sure, some of the notability comes from the published papers attempting to correlate electoral success with height, but we would not make an article about a published paper like that in a vacuum (say, if the paper were a study of shoe salesmen by height). In this case I don't think we can make an argument that listing russian leaders by height is trivia while listing american leaders by height is encyclopedic. I understand that is not the only difference between the two articles but it is the primary difference. So lets give it a chance, tag it for work to be done by the appropriate project and move on. Protonk (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list may be discriminate but this is just loosely associated trivia. If you want this kept you need to assert that this connection is notable. The list of US presidents by height isn't much better but at least there is an assertion of notability even if the connection between height and being president is fringe. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the title made me smile, in a Monty Python kind of way, the list seems to be an arbitrary synthesis of otherwise unrelated criteria. Now, if a respected academic source were to publish a study of "height of Soviet/Russian leaders", we might get a good article out of it. But that is not happening here. ETA: I'm not a racist! My cat is black! Learning that there's a similar article about US presidents also made me smile, but less so, because I'd already read a piece (by Scott Adams of all people) discussing this very issue: he says that US presidents tend to be taller (or have better hair). And that's the difference: reliable sources have discussed that subject. This is original research by synthesis. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source and improve. It is often claimed that certain Russian political leaders felt a complex of inferiority because of their small height, which led to repressions. They requested to make their photos with other people of higher height is such manner to look higher than all others. This list can be salvaged if put in a proper context and sourced.Biophys (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --John (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ameobi[edit]

Non notable. Has not played a senior game Sammayel (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - 1 non-playing naming for the youth team squad at Newcastle - now that's pushing notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Number 57. Razorflame (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sufficient others sources have been found, and should be included in the article.. - Philippe 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Taitz[edit]

one article about his business does not a notable person make cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Delete as non-notable. X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable ukexpat (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is this Chicago Business News article and this Forbes article which are accessible without payment, and Google News search would indicate that more articles are available behind pay walls indicating that multiple reliable sources exist. -- Whpq (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whpq's sources demonstrate notability, and here's another one for good luck. The article could do with a rewrite in a rather less gushing style. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Finance Article h8tow8ck (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May be appropriate after it has been studied and discussed by scholars, but at present it clearly runs afoul of the guideline on neologisms.--Kubigula (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daybeer[edit]

Neologism (a few weeks old by its own admission); no sources, and I seriously doubt that any exist. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any reliable sources. Agree with Zetawoof that there probably aren't any considering how recently this was made up.--Beloved Freak 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pour it out No proof that this is a widely used term; even admits to being a WP:NEOlogism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism, verging on WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Razorflame (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made-up? unsure. NN neologism? Certainly. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This term is currently being studied by Scholars at the University of Minnesota. I believe if you give it sometime there will be credible information and a wide list of references to go along with it. comment added by Founderdbc (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - funny, but nope--SevernSevern (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Perhaps he's not super notable, but consensus is that he is notable.--Kubigula (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Aronov[edit]

Non-notable professor, no evidence that he meets WP:PROF. Speedy was declined. --Finngall ^talk 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this, and as he's my co-author (one of two through whom I have my low Erdős number, his being one), I'm reluctant to express my opinion at all. He hasn't racked up huge citation numbers, but his Google scholar results (h-index ~ 20) show that he's a respected and successful computational geometry researcher. On the other hand, I've got a little list of computational geometers whom I think should be mentioned on Wikipedia, and while Boris would be on the list if I'd remembered him before someone else added the article, he'd be near the bottom of it, not from any fault of his own but because we're missing many who are clearly more notable: there's nothing I can point to beyond his publication record and Erdős number to prove him notable, while many of the others on the list are there because they've chaired or co-chaired the annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, or have some other external recognition. And if one looks internally, at what other articles already here should link to him, it's a nonempty set (including K-set (geometry) for instance) but not large. So for now I think I'll remain neutral. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sixty-one published papers. I don't have to evaluate them because a/ the peer-reviewers did, & they are the third party sources., and b/David E did, and he I interpret DE's comment above that he's on his list to be added as an endorsement, considering his very high standards. How one can say that and also not oppose the deletion of the article if someone else write it is a little too complicated for me, unless he means that there are other people without articles that are yet more notable. The proper response to that is to go write the other articles. OTHER STUFF DOESNT EXIST YET is not an argument for deletion. If one needs something beyond the papers he edited a volume in a major series. Aronov, S. Basu, J. Pach, and M. Sharir, eds, Algorithms and Combinatorics, volume 25, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003, ISBN: 3-540-00371-1. Springer-Verlag catalog entry here. And his web page refers to David E Three times. Our local equivalent of Erdos numbers? DGG (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Sixty-one published papers" in 24 years amounts to an unimpressive 2.5 articles/year figure. --Damiens.rf 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of the annual performance evaluation/merit pay increase process at my institution, 2.5 papers a year is *way* more than that expected in the math department. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I am a mathematician myself and work at a large research-oriented midwestern university. Having 2.5 publications per year in math is considered more than sufficient to demonstrate being research-active. In any event, it is not the total number of publications but their significance that should count. Thus an h-index and citation rates are more reliable indicators of notability than the total number of papers published. Nsk92 (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your experience probably informs you very well. there is a large difference between disciplines as to the average number of papers authored by active researchers. Protonk (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that an h-index of 20 is good enough for a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evidence by DGG and Pete Hurd's knowledge of the norms in math. (that's not weird: if someone got out 2.5 peer-reviewed papers a year in musicology, he or she'd likely be on the fast-track to major success) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Banyan Tree 09:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TopoQuest[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination declined. Article about a website that gets all of 9 google hits in total, that was created by someone called Ryan Niemi - article creator was Ryanniemi (talk · contribs). User has also been adding links for this website to Digital raster graphic and Topographic map articles. Roleplayer (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, coupled with the obvious WP:COI/WP:AUTO issues. The two together are fatal. Powers ^T 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on addressing some of these issues. I've edited the article to remove any reference to me, and to make the content of more general interest. Specifically, this is a non-commercial (free) website intended to take the replace of TopoZone, which is no longer free to use and has left significant holes in the ability of Internet users to locate and view topographic maps online. This is one of the only free resources online with a database of topographic maps, a way to find them, and links to download them from archive.org, so I believe it's of interest to people searching for map data. Google pulled all 1300 pages of per-state / per-letter topographic name lists within the last 48 hours, listing every USGS topographic map in the US, but most of them are still being indexed. Meanwhile, I'm certainly open to ideas how to make this article of more general interest, and to avoid the possibility this becomes an inadvertent SPAM article.Ryanniemi. 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the CSD A7 tag and embarrassingly missed the obvious WP:COI with article creator name of Ryanniemi (talk · contribs) and named person Niemi in article! Although the editor has removed his name from the article it surely is still a conflict of interest. I didn't agree entirely with lack of notability and thought it could be addressed easily with references but the WP:COI is fatal :( Nk.sheridan Talk 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After examining the WP:COI policies more closely, I'll concede that I have a conflict of interest as the owner of the website. I've attempted to keep the content neutral, and it would seem the content is or will be of some interest to Wikipedia users. I'm unable to find significant differences in neutrality or intent in relation to the TopoZone article. The site is free, and I have no financial gain from promoting it (quite the opposite, I'm losing significant amounts of money in the attempt to make the mapping data free and available for everyone to use, and will continue losing more and more as users use the site, but I continue primarily in my sense of civic duty on this project). Oh well, you have me on the WP:COI as the site owner. Ryanniemi. 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest I'd agree with you User:Ryaniemi that the content of both TopoQuest and TopoZone is perhaps of interest to wikipedia users. It is certainly of interest to myself and friends who have an interest in geography and mapping. Of course I cannot speak for all users! As you have stated there is no significant difference between the neutrality and intent between stated articles. Likely TopoZone has not had the kind of Scrutiny that the TopoQuest article has encountered! Sorry I am still delete as your article is WP:COI Nk.sheridan Talk 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete COI or not, it does not even attempt to assert notability ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. And, I applaud Ryanniemi for his honesty. Renee (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading more on the WP:WEB and working through creating the Libre_Map_Project article while trying to figure out the reference and notability issues, I believe I understand the notability problem on my TopoQuest article, and am in agreement that notability is lacking. Where I'm a bit more confused was on the external link to TopoQuest's map search tool I placed in the Digital raster graphic article that Roleplayer deleted just after flagging the TopoQuest article for deletion. From what I can tell, it was consistent with the types of other external links provided in that article, provided access to information that wasn't available in the other external links (specifically, better tools for searching for the map someone desires), and would seem to have been of interest to users viewing that article. During the couple days from when I added the link until Roleplayer deleted it, my web access logs show that around 250 users clicked through from the Digital raster graphic article. Of those, approximately 200 people proceeded to search for topographic maps in my database or list all the maps by state. Approximately 75 people then downloaded a total of 430 USGS digital topographic maps located through my website in Digital raster graphic format. It would seem that the external link was found useful by a fair number of Wikipedia users, and successfully helped them obtain the maps they were seeking, at no benefit to me (on the contrary, I paid for a portion of the bandwidth needed for those users to obtain their maps for free). Roleplayer nuked the link and noted on my talk page that I had posted an inappropriate link. I had a similar link on the Topographic map article, which resulted in around 100 click-throughs, 80 users performing searches, and 30 users downloading an additional 60 maps in Digital raster graphic form. It would appear the external link proved useful for readers of the Topographic map article as well, though less so than the link in the Digital raster graphic link. I'm a bit confused now, why were these external links inappropriate and removed? I had a collision with Roleplayer editing the Digital raster graphic article, I added a link to TerraServer, TopoQuest and TopoZone in the article that I now see was correct for him to nuke, and I'm not at all concerned about that, I'm just wondering about the external link at the bottom of that article. COI again on an external link that provides me no benefit yet apparently benefitted Wikipedia users that viewed those articles and clicked-through? Ryanniemi (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC), revision at 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment it was removed because it was spam, being a link to a non-notable website that you yourself are the creator of. -- Roleplayer (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misc editing performed to clean the article up, reference additions, etc... Ryanniemi (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I might as well be the one and only keep for my article! On the COI issue, Wikipedia does allow for transparency, and I believe I've written the article in a neutral unbiased point of view, containing technical information that would be of interest to mapping and GIS enthusiasts. It's not a commercial site, and I do not benefit whether the article remains on Wikipedia or not. Ryanniemi (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Banyan Tree 10:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The M4+2 engine[edit]

Non-notable, patented invention that has not yet entered production, no independent reviews, most likely it's a way to "advertise" the invention. Roo72 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator has made exactly one contribution, and this article is it. I can't find anything on google to show that it's received much of any attention. This definitely reeks of spam. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, per nom and JeremyMcCracken. Visor (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep Added an independent third party reference, the inventor has 16 patents, so what, this one from 6 years ago didn't enter the production phase yet? - it doesn't automatically discredit it as an entry into English Wikipedia. I think many engineers in the field of the thermal exhaust systems will be interested in it. No reason to delete it. However, this article needs a lot of work. The issue of better category is the first one. Second, the fact that the author of this article is a novice to Wikipedia, as it shows, is apparent - it doesn't disqualify him from here as the nominator has suggested. No links etc. So far, this poorly written justification to support such an AfD is more obvious to me as a misjudgment than the article itself. A tag regarding want to include required refs would be more appropriate I guess. greg park avenue (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added another reference, both from the official sites, local Polish gov. and edu., improved the language and style I hope; my impression is this article sounds too enthusiastic about the possible energy input/output rates claimed in it, still worth to save, that's why I changed my vote from weak keep to keep. I haven't found any traces of auto-promotion by this article's creator - no entries by him on this AfD - rather the ignorance and/or frivolousnes on its subject shown by the nominator, who as admin in Polish Wiki singlehandedly speedily deleted its mirror entry in there ignoring five or six votes (5-6) for keeping, against 0 (zero) for deletion. Less than five votes over here, most of them before adding refs; please relist if necessary - a tag for an expert opinion I wouldn't mind at all. greg park avenue (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, refs provided are not RS ukexpat (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, references do not meet WP:V or WP:R. Maybe after some scholarly sources come out about it someone can post an updated article in the future. Renee (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:R may apply here - there was no talk of redirecting this article until this time, rather of expert opinion. And WP:V is accessible easily for someone having AOL/Netscape browser as I have. Sorry, if you don't, but what we do need here is an expert opinion(!!!), not a blabla about internet access difficulties and its understanding. greg park avenue (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Renee meant WP:RS. The sources in the article aren't verifiable- of the two I can read, both are authored by the inventor. That's not enough to say it's even a real invention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One source in Polish is written by an independent city journalist about the inventor; the other source which abstract is in English has been published by a respectable scientific journal, the article co-authored by the inventor, still published by the educational institution. Both sites are not accesible to the public, not ones anyone can edit like those in Wikipedia. If your article had been published by say Physical Review, would you consider its abstract listed on its official site as non-admissible as evidence into Wikipedia according to the WP:RV guidelines? And here is the clinch - the inventor doesn't take part neither in this discussion, nor tries to interfere in the editing of this article. Someone else like me does. And if this is not enoogh to say it's even a real invention as you have stated above, you might be right this time, that's why I have asked an expert's opinion in this field. Are you one? greg park avenue (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An expert isn't going to be any help with reliable sources. Also at issue with the article is notability. There doesn't appear to be any coverage (journals, books, etc) on the internet, which is exactly why there aren't any more sources out there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this. Six stroke engine, very close in the idea to M4+2. 40% reduction in fuel consumption meaning little less only than claimed in this article. And only three references. No books, no big coverage in journals or newspapers (actually in only one). And all these Six stroke engines are also patents only. Still they have been allowed into Wikipedia. Why this one should be excluded? You don't like it? greg park avenue (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDONTLIKEIT greg park avenue (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) That doesn't apply; I'm not in favor of deleting because I don't like the idea. It's not notable and has a lack of reliable sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see more links have been added; it might pass notability now; I'm not sure as I don't know the language. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a prime example- searching google for M4+2 engine leads to confusing results as google doesn't understand the plus. I googled for M 4 2 engine piotr, using the inventor's first name to try and throw off false hits. I got the wikipedia article and the document linked from the article and labeled as by the author, and nothing else. I googled Piotr Mezyk and got the same two links plus a word document. Google news, google scholar, google books, no hits. There's just no source to demonstrate the notability of this design. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got same problem with searching for M2+4 - definitely Google unfriendly term, and don't know its English equivalent. Maybe the author of this article who significantly improved it for now, will deliver it in the article (please, not here)? First two of the three extra added references are independently written articles about the invention, not the inventor (that's why Piotr Mezyk didn't yield many Google hits I think), something like an explanation to general public in Scientific American. They start with the genesis of the research on Biofuels - a European research dud but widely sponsored by Polish government in the research institutes in Eighties and Nineties. This engine prototype is a byproduct of this research - a successful design and it works the same or even better on pure gasoline and oil than on a mixture of gas and oleo. The third one is published by a patent office - a generic patent I guess - and probably delivered by the patent holder, not much of WP:N, still worth mentioning. I hope someone speaking Polish will correct and contribute to this statement. No expert opinion is required at this time. Thank you greg park avenue (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Renamed to Mount Pearl Hindu Temple. Banyan Tree 10:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pearl Hindu Temple (St.Johns, Newfoundland)[edit]

Was speedy-delete-tagged {{db-spam}}, but seems to have possibilities to me. (I renamed it from Hindu Temple (Krishna).) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are the textbook citations in the article enough to establish notability? --Eastmain (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It sounds to me like it is notable within the local community, at least, and the references provided have verified some wider notability. (But rename to Mount Pearl Hindu Temple, unless there's some reason to believe there's more than one organization by that name.) --Russ (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, there are many temples, churches, ashrams in thousands of communities around the world that may be known in their community, but it doesn't make them notable for an encyclopedia. Renee (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The face that it is a temple with some coverage is not enough to make it notable. There will be too many temples around the world that would fulfil that criteria. Gizza^Discuss ^© 10:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is special because of the references. Notability has been established through the references. The fact that one temple is notable does not mean that others will be automatically – notability must be established in each case, so "there are too many temples around the world that would fulfill that criteria" shouldn't be a problem. --Eastmain (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important to the history of the Hindu community in Newfoundland and therefore notable. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baltimore County Public Schools.--Kubigula (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stemmers Run Middle School[edit]

Subject middle school is not notable, per WP:SCHOOLS and is unlikely to have the required sources to pass WP:N. Middle/elementary schools are not considered inherantly notable. This article fails to assert special notability, and does not list any reliable sources. The school is already listed at the school district article, Baltimore County Public Schools. JGHowes ^talk - 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the school district as a plausible search term. We want to take the readers to where the information they want is. -- saberwyn 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baltimore County Public Schools to enable navigation. Not notable enough for its own article per WP:SCHOOLS. --Beloved Freak 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect if possible, else just Redirect. Powers ^T 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per comments above.Renee (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above comments. Razorflame (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Banyan Tree 10:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAP4[edit]

This seems a non-notable product. The only non-manufacturer source given is a website with user reviews (WP:SPS). Interestingly there's a second page on the same product, which I also list for deletion. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAP4 (Real Action Paintball Marker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baltimore County Public Schools. - Banyan Tree 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pikesville Middle School[edit]

Subject middle school is not notable, per WP:SCHOOLS and is unlikely to have the required sources to pass WP:N. Middle/elementary schools are not considered inherantly notable. This article fails to assert special notability, and does not list any reliable sources. The school is already listed at the district article, Baltimore County Public Schools. JGHowes ^talk - 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district album as a plausible search term. We want to take the people to where the information is. -- saberwyn 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baltimore County Public Schools, as saberwyn says, it can be used as a search term. Not notable enough for its own article per WP:SCHOOLS.--Beloved Freak 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without more evidence, but Google searches indicate some non-trivial coverage including one notable alumnus, Kevin Liles.[1] This school may have a story to tell. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable school. There is a weird area that looks like an old graveyard (rumor has it as Civil War-ish), but I haven't been able to find anything WP:RS about that, and still not notable about the school at all. I don't even think we need a redirect, since it's not likely to become an article (don't need the place-holder) and searching for "pikesville middle school" should still find the BCPS page. DMacks (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As opposed to taking them to the information directly. A redirect is not always a placeholder, it is more often a navigational tool to take users from 'incorrect' locations of information (i.e. misspellings, alternate names, sub-topics) to the 'correct location'. -- saberwyn 02:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. My point was that it isn't needed for the user who is looking up this phrase. And I didn't think there was likely to be a mention of it in other articles (so no redlinks would be cured by having a redirect). But redirects are cheap, so I have no objection to redirect, just didn't see the need. General question: do we usually have redirects from every (or "most", or "whatever people bother creating) school-name to the school-system (or jurisdiction, or whatever), or only "after the article dies by AfD" precedent? DMacks (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baltimore County Public Schools as per Belovedfreak and WP:SCHOOL proposal. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop[edit]

This is a marginally notable album series marketed through TV ads, and all the album pages are borderline {{db-empty}} candidates. Although the main article is a decent length, it's not well sourced. —Crazytales (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of album articles:

Keep This is not seriously tenable; most of the albums in this series have sold half a million copies or more in the U.S.. The album pages are all just fine; they are generally short but well-tailored and have fully wikilinked track listings, which is perfectly encyclopedic. Chubbles (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are not notability. Tens of millions of people watched the Super Bowl and saw a crowd shot of that fat shirtless dude with his face painted blue who was sitting in the front row of the south end zone next to the girl who looked sorta like Kelly from Saved by the Bell. That's a red-link for a reason, as that guy, despite being seen by millions of people, is non-notable. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC. We can cite policy all day here, if you like. Selling half a million copies of an album legitimizes the presence of the article, and rightly so. Chubbles (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles. These album pages are quite stubby, but they look all right, and many of these albums have gone gold or higher; there seem to be at least a couple decent sources regarding said albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of sources are we talking about here? Hopefully not AllMusic stubs. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why hopefully? AMG is one of the best resources out there for popular music. I use it in pretty much every article I write. Not perfect, but far more comprehensive than paper discographies, and far more comprehensive than we are at present. Chubbles (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could all of the stubs on the individual albums be merged into a Kidz Bop Discography page? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not generally opposed to this idea, and I think it's a much nicer and more workable solution for smaller discographies of short-lived bands than the outright deletion often pursued at WP:PROD, I think in this case it might be better to leave them as separate articles. Chubbles (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep as per Chubbles. LukeTheSpook (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, except for main article' The articles about Kidz Bop 1, Kidz Bop 2, Kidz Bop 3, etc. fail the first test of an encyclopedia article... truth. The articles contain a track listing, which is advertising; but they also list the original artists next to each song which is false advertising. The articles implie that Smash Mouth, Britney Spears, 'N Sync, etc. are heard on these albums, which is completely untrue. As anyone who has heard a "Kidz Bop" commercial knows, these are squeaky clean versions of songs, and they are re-recorded by a group of children who have marginal singing talent. Wikipedia is not the place for patently false statements. I suppose one could go back and "correct" this information proved unreliable, but it would make more sense to simply list all these songs in one article about the series. Mandsford (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "patently false statements" can be fixed, you know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and the fix is to add "originally performed by" in front of all of them. Please, by all means, {{sofixit}}. Chubbles (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, these untrustworthy articles can be fixed (instead of "originally performed by", maybe we can put "sung by a kid pretending to be..."). But do we really need a commercial about what cover songs are on Kidz Bop 13, unless it's being offered for sale? Mandsford (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the sentiment of this, I don't think the phrasing is quite how I would put it. The majority of album articles include a track listing. —Crazytales (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the series in general. However, the various album articles might be better if merged into the primary article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument for keep would be stronger if the article told more about the reality of the recordings. Who makes the aesthetic decisions? Who edits lyrics? Who chooses songs and singers? Do they have any values or agenda beyond selling records, and if so, what? Bren Flibig (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. If any information can be found of that sort, it would certainly be useful to the article if sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here, especially since this would flesh out the audience and production sections. —Crazytales (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm sorry but... are you kidding? JuJube (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we we're kidding, we'd say "a horse walks into a bar, and the barman says 'why the long face?' " Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The "group" is notable, and the albums may then exist by convention. Sure, the parent article needs expansion from sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kidz Bop (series), List of albums in the Kidz Bop series, or something along those lines. Notabilty is not inheritable - otherwise there'd be "Hank Aaron's Next-Door Neighbor's Second Wife's Brother". Each individual subject of an individual article must meet the criteria laid out in WP:N - specifically, significant coverage in reliable sources. No, a discographic mention in AllMusic does not satisfy this requirement. Albums such as these will not find themselves recipients of sincere art critique, as there is not much to be said from an artistic standpoint. If a particular album has gained general journalistic noteriety, such as by being linked to a school shooting or whatever, then by all means, give that one album its own page, but there's nothing that can be said about Kidz Bop 9 that does not equally apply to Kidz Bop 10, save for the most basic information - and covering that basic information is the job of AllMusic, not an encyclopedia. I would urge the closing administrator to remember that this is not a vote. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why so many users treat the track listings of albums as "unencyclopedic" - this is some of the most basic information that should be provided about a musician, and is, in my opinion, probably more important than a biography of that musician. Furthermore, there are volumes - both published and online - dedicated to the recording of such phenomena; they're called discographies, and they are entirely legitimate studies. Wikipedia's lack of willingness to record these things is one of its greatest failures to its users who care about music. Chubbles (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep Kidz Bop Halloween for the obvious reason... :) In any event, TenPoundHammer provides compelling reasons throughout this discussion. Also, these encyclopedic articles are part of what Wikipedia is per the First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia on albums of which there are many published volumes. And consistent with encyclopedia tradition: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diderot also wrote, "May the Encyclopédie become a sanctuary in which human knowledge is protected from time and from change." If that's what you want, I think you're in the wrong place. Deor (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the right place. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge individual albums into main article, if tenable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge individual albums into main article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the consensus, so far, is to merge the album articles into a main article about Kidz Bop, which is probably the best of solutions. While the series sells very well, and is very notable, I can't emphasize enough that the individual album articles are low in content and, far worse, untrue. If the authors of the articles Kidz Bop 1, Kidz Bop 2, etc. has been that careless with the truth about the artists one can expect to hear on the albums, then what reason do we have to rely on any of the other unsourced statements in those articles? I don't buy the argument that "Oh, it was a 'mistake', oh, that can be fixed". All of those articles can be merged into the main page, and under the circumstances, they should be. Mandsford (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article and the individual albums, too as passing the notability bar. Just because the people behind the albums weren't creative enough to give them individual titles doesn't mean they're not indiviudally notable. If we're going to do that, I assume the album articles for Chicago and Peter Gabriel will likewise need to be merged. AFD is not a forum for discussing whether the content in article A is better than the content in article B. That's a content issue to be discussed on the individual album articles. We're here to discuss the viability of these articles. 23skidoo (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge album track listings into a single article at Kidz Bop discography or a similar title, being sure to remove the performer-ambiguity problem. Delete List of songs on the Kidz Bop albums. Deor (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even in the worst case scenario we would redirect without deleting if we did a merge per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, "merge" means "put the information somewhere else, and change the page to a redirect." What makes you think I didn't know that when I gave my opinion? Deor (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have "delete" as well in your post and there's no reason why that couldn't be redirected as well thereby keeping editors' contributions public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid deletion reason given. Being notable warrants inclusion; lacking references warrants the addition of sources. Rray (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article and the album articles but delete List of songs on the Kidz Bop albums. The overall Kidz Bop project is clearly notable per WP:MUSIC due to its commercial impact; the last seven albums in the numbered series (Kids Bop 7 through 13) have all hit the Top 10 on the Billboard 200. By the same token I would allow articles for the individual albums. Merging them all into a discography article would probably not be a good idea because there are already 18 albums with two or three more being released each year. I would delete the "list of songs" article because I don't think we have indexes to songs released by regular musical performers, or if we do, we shouldn't. If any non-Wikimedia GFDL-compliant wiki wants that list, it can be transwikied over there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Banyan Tree 10:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious imperialism[edit]

I think this article should be deleted because it is rather linked with and rather belonges to Cultural Imperialism. Apart from this, it hardly cites to any sources, it only refers to an internet page that can not be taken as a serious source. Getrag (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was to the Free Republic website, where was re"printed" an article from The New Criterion. I've retargeted the link to point to the original TNC article, and it should be noted that TNC appears to be a reliable source. However, said source only mentions the phrase "religious imperialism" once, in the context of Islam, and I don't think it supports much of the information in this article. Powers ^T 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR article, grossly misinterpreting the meaning of the term imperialism. --Soman (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and very confused. Seems more like a list which would be hard to verify. What has Japan got to do with religious imperialsm??--Tigeroo (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article, in its present state is completely un-encyclopedic, and violates several policies. However, I note that this article is quite young.Bless sins (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to chastity belt. Chastity belt is already phrased for both genders, as well as covering the modern use in male erotic sexual denial and a historical use in Hindu religious practice. An cut-and-paste merge would thus be redundant, and the choice of how much content to move and how to structure it a content decision better left to interested editors. I have made a note of the redirect at Talk:Chastity belt, if any editors wish to transfer and source (please) content. - Banyan Tree 11:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity cage[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement for a particular brand of sex toy (the CB-6000, which is featured in the photo on this page). There are no references in the article, which on its own terms contains no particular notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AFD was created in a malformed form. I've fixed it. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ecoleetage (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea how this is notable; then again, it may be a major plot device in porn movies for all I know. A Google search isn't promising, though. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehehe. I want one. Delete. X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. Ghits seem to be all either commercial or blogs. --Beloved Freak 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/redirect. Hmm. While this particular model of "chastity cage" is almost certainly not notable, the general concept (as an extension of the chastity belt) probably is. Redirecting there, or to erotic sexual denial, is probably the best approach if there's a consensus for deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources that establish any notability to this device. I don't even think it is notable enough to redirect. This is clearly an advertisement for a specific device and should be deleted.--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep and generalize. There are a wide range of similar devices. DGG (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge and redirect to chastity belt. It's simply a variation on this age old concept. Earthdirt (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it is missing data on other products editors could add some, there is no deadline. It seems to be a known type of toy in BDSM... not that I would know anything about it.... *shifty-eyes*. </joke> :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge with Chastity belt or rename to Male chastity device. This is a verifiable concept, widely available in some countries (inc. North America and Europe). That the current text is based on one or two products can be sorted out in time - the title, and therefore intent - is generic. --Interesdom (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fairly new device but reasonably notable. An encyclopedia is where you look up new and starnge things. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to chastity belt. Assuming this information is verifiable, it can be summed in a paragraph in that article.-Wafulz (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but suggest all images are made anonymous as in "A typical exanple of a chastity cage" not a model name. If this is a true encyclopedia then we must recognise these things exist, and have done for some time. Agree therefore with Simon Speed

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - which, frankly, I think is insane. However, my job is to judge consensus. Defaulting to keep, without prejudice against renomination in the future, of course. - Philippe 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Brownell[edit]

Little League pitcher, local notability at best, probably written by a friend of hers Spanneraol (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the above reasons. Spanneraol (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the baseball notability guidelines. It might be appropriate to include a brief mention of her in another article, such as Little League Baseball. BRMo (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The standard for WP:ATHLETE for an amateur is "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Little League is the highest level available in baseball for people of her age. Her gender makes her a rarity in the sport, and her accomplishment has been achieved by only a select few. She has been honored by the Baseball Hall of Fame and the President of the United States as the article states. Contrary to the above opinion, this was not just a local story. I live in North Carolina and remember reading about this in both my local paper and the USA Today. The article is sourced with independent third party sources. This person is notable by amateur athletes standards. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added links to more third party coverage including NBC, The New York Times, the Congressional Record, ESPN, and USA Today. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Little League baseball is far from the "highest level in amateur sports" a criteria which makes no mention of age. Despite what the article states, plenty of girls play little league baseball and her being honored by the president is a human interest story perhaps but lots of people get honored by the president for similar things but dont get wikipedia articles. It's still a WP:BLP1E situation. Spanneraol (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I never claimed that it was the highest level in amateur sports. It was the highest level in amateur sports available to someone her age. The point being that she completed the rarest and most difficult achievement a pitcher can possibly accomplish at the highest possible level she was allowed to compete at. Many respected national news organizations felt it was notable and worthy of feature coverage. The Hall of Fame felt that it was worthy of a display at their institution and the President and congressmen felt it was worthy of official recognition. This was above and beyond a mere human interest story. Certainly it is notable. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets standards per Kinstone Eagle's comment. Some years from now, this person's notability might diminish - but some years should pass before notability is reviewed. For now, notability is satisfied. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If something was once notable, notability can never be lost. SashaNein (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinstone Eagle. The nominator's rationale of this person being notable only locally is clearly false and the end comment is wholly inappropriate. SashaNein (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was delete. . - Philippe 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

The deletion of this article was contested at DELREV on on 21 April 2008. The result of the discussion was Overturn and refactor the closing decision as No Consensus.

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion (Scarrow novel)[edit]

Plot summary and dramatis personae of book which appears to fail WP:BK on all counts, based on current article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It contains all you need to know about the book without spoiling the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigsy05 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really does not matter. We are talking about why it should be on Wikipedia, not the book itself. Jaymacdonald (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well since its here and theres clearly nothing wrong with the article itself, why delete it? Does it harm wikipedia? Is there a space limit? I dont think there is, so leave it here to inform the people who want to see what the book is about. Rigsy05 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable book in not-particularly-notable series by minor writer. I created the article at Rigsy's request, but fail to see any evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No notability, whatsoever. Jaymacdonald (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep You have no notability. We should be deleting you! Rigsy05 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are banned on Wikipedia. You should also put a reason for your strong keep, instead of just an attack. You may want to read WP:BK. Jaymacdonald (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to read whatever you just posted, and it wasn't a personal attack. And a reason for strong keep? Because its a best-seller (see Eastmains post), and I think its a great book. Rigsy05 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changing vote per the references provided later. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wasn't this at at AFD a few days ago and was deleted? If so, then speedy time. George The Dragon (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The other AfD was for a different book, I think. --Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was for a book called centurion by a different author. I didn't know though and kept trying to change the details to the Scarrow book. Got me in a bit of trouble that did. Rigsy05 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this interesting and encyclopedic article that is well-organized and contains reviews as seconday coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this listing for an entry in The Sunday Times (London) list of fiction hardback bestsellers and the reviews that I added. If it's a bestseller as measured by The Sunday Times, it ought to be notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this has nothing to do with deleting or keeping (though I still say keep) but who changed the summary? It was much better before. Whoever changed it, shame on you! Haha Rigsy05 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the edit history of the article, the summary has been changed because it was a copyright violation. We deal very seriously with copyvios here on Wikipedia, for example an article that is a complete copyvio can be deleted on sight (see WP:CSD#G12). Also, please be civil, this is one of our core policy. Cenarium^Talk 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres not being civil and theres joking, Cenarium. Nothing wrong with trying to lighten this page up. Rigsy05 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line is easy to cross. Cenarium^Talk 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established. It needs cleanup and removal of trivia, particularly of non notable characters. Cenarium^Talk 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may rub some people the wrong way, but being a bestseller doesn't appear to be sufficient for meeting the criteria of WP:BK. And online bookstores (such as the Amazon) are specifically mentioned as "not an indication of notability". I would withdraw the nomination if there were better sources of reviews than those already added, but as it stands I still think it fails WP:BK. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is sufficient enough for Wikipedia, i.e. a paperless encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant the WP:BK guideline that Wikipedia created and occasionally follows. I should have been more clear, I guess. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you feel that bestseller status, in and of itself, then you'll need to get the guidelines changed. At present, there's nothing in them about bestseller status. (For one thing, how do you measure? By country, by genre, by.... ?) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see nothing in the guideline that suggests being a best-seller and having multiple reviews isn't sufficient. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a review from a British newspaper, the Yorkshire Evening Post. --Eastmain (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, only one author has made significant contributions to the article and has requested deletion (see last comment on this AfD). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hills Have Eyes III (2008 Film)[edit]

After having the proposed deletion tags removed several times by the article's creator, I've decided to create a consensus. I propose that this film article should be deleted because there is no sources or any other official information to say that the film is in production. If the film is announced, and there is reliable sources, the article may then be recreated. I have found not one shred of evidence to suggest the film is being made, which violates WP:NOTFILM and WP:CRYSTAL, and the article creator can seem to give no official source. Therefore the article should be deleted.--EclipseSSD (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFF/WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate this film is actually being made, certainly with a 2008 release. No prejudice against recreation at a later date if and when such a film is actually announced or released. 23skidoo (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 23skiddoo. X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; a search engine test shows only rumblings back in February 2007. If there's any verifiable coverage about this possible project, it should go to a film series article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of this article, i actually now think it should be deleted. I created it because the wikipedia article for Fox Atomic Studios said it was under production and set to be released in 2008 or 2009. That's the only source i had and it should be deleted. I've already placed a section in the Hills Have Eyes Series about an upcoming remake. LukeTheSpook (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Richardson (Negro League officer)[edit]

Not a player, just an "officer" of the club.. can't find any sources other than one trivial mention Spanneraol (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know very little about these obscure sports that are only played in a couple of countries, so could anyone clarify what is meant by "officer" in this context? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea. Can find no sources as to what this guy did for the Negro Leagues. He is just listed as an "officer." Spanneraol (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there's no evidence of RS coverage and ghits only confirm notability as a wiki mirror (including an amusing ebay one) I'm fairly well versed in these 'obscure sports' ;) and I'm entirely unfamiliar with such a position. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a hoax, just something so far pre-Google it's a true challenge to confirm TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, officer is a variation of "official", and he was some sort of assistant to the manager, or the equivalent of a board member (corporate officer). Neither is much of a claim to notability in and of itself. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before we delete this one, I'd like to check the reference listed (Turkey Stearnes and the Detroit Stars by Richard Bak) before we do. While it's likely that this is an obscure functionary with the Stars, I'd like to be certain. -- Couillaud (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page came up for me when I searched on GBooks. It's a one-line mention in a list of players and "officers", and it says that he was an officer in 1925. Not much more than that. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Are we quite certain that this person and George Richardson (Negro League player) are not one and the same? The dates would seem to fit a player who retired and found a job in a team front office. Has happened many times before at all levels of play. Should these two be merged with the assumption that they are the same individual until someone proves otherwise? A line could be added to the player's page like "Richard Bak mentions a George Richardson as being an officer with the Detroit Stars in 1925. It is not clear whether they are one and the same person." Kinston eagle (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through Bak's book over lunch and could not find a single mention of Richardson in the narrative section (didn't look at rosters and lists). It's likely that his name was on a piece of paper (I do know the Stars changed ownership that year, with Tenny Blount selling the team to John Roesink) with nothing else known The book's narrative mentions two other officers in 1925 (when the team changed hands), but Richardson was not one of them. I'd do with deleting the entry. -- Couillaud (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Couillaud as lacking sufficient in depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO. BRMo (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium Galactica II: Alliances/Stats[edit]

Article consists entirely of unreferenced gamecruft. Mika1h (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Mika1h (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be entirely OR. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, which suggests moving the material to StrategyWiki or something similar. Anturiaethwr (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be annoying: OR requires original conclusions and not objective facts. The first table might come in handy in the main article to illustrate basic game mechanics and the differences between races in a relatively abstract way, but the rest is minutiae beyond ever our nonpapery ability to handle. --Kiz o r 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babes in Toyland: The New Musical (musical)[edit]

Contested prod. Notability not established - only reference is to website of production company. Only substantial edits (apart from my initial clean-up and original PRODer) are by writer of the musical. ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to exist to promote production company. It doesn't help that the only reference contains no information about the production except to "check back soon". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability established. Tavix (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since there have been no significant changes to the article from the last AFD, I'm calling this a recreation of deleted content. It's substantively the same, and no strong case for keeping it has been made. Ordinarily I'd lean towards "no consensus, default to keep", but in this case, this article (or a substantively similar one) has already gone through the process and been deleted. I'm going to uphold that ruling.. - Philippe 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Ville Rouge (2nd nomination)[edit]

This page was put up for deletion 2 years ago; the consensus was to delete, and it was. Since that time, a new article was created. However, it has not addressed the reason behind the first deletion: the horse is simply not notable outside of being related to a Kentucky Derby winner. Grev (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't know much about horses, but there's a lot of coverage about this one. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First AfD, which was a ~~pretty~~ unanimous consensus to delete. Pastordavid (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yep the nom noted that. Consensus can change, but it doesn't appear this is going to get much comment TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a genealogical database, and this is just a horse genealogy entry. Quale (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Albright[edit]

This guy should meet WP:MUSIC, as he has written songs for multiple notable artists (as verified by a search of his All Music Guide listing). However, that doesn't really qualify as a reliable source as it's just a song listing -- no actual AMG bio. Furthermore, I can't find any reliable sources asserting to his notability as a songwriter. None whatsoever. Therefore, I believe that he fails WP:MUSIC. Possible COI as well; page was created by Songmanrandy (talk · contribs), a single purpose account. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching the ASCAP database does turn up a Randy Stephen Albright who has a long list of songs, some of which were recorded by the artists named in the article. I haven't checked them out to see if any would meet WP:MUSIC#Criteria for composers and lyricists but it seems possible. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his credits seem to be his own material. The only ones that I can see that were singles are "Oh Carolina" by Vince Gill and "That's Enough of That" by Mila Mason; the rest seem to have been cut either by Albright himself or by non-notable artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of any indication that he was involved in the writing of a notable composition; fails WP:MUSIC#Criteria for composers and lyricists. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this songwriter might pass WP:MUSIC but surely fails WP:V. If an encyclopaedic article can't be written, this should be deleted. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Midwest hip hop#St. Louis. Editors are encouraged to merge information if and where appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis rappers[edit]

Simple list with no real article content; would be better as "list of...", or category. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Midwest hip hop#St. Louis. This article doesn't have much to merge but it would help improve the Midwest hip hop article. There already is a category (Category:St. Louis rappers) so right now the article is mostly redundant. ~ Eóin (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per rationale above --JForget 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsuitable for article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Eóin, this article is just redundant to the Midwest hip hop article and category.-- danntm ^T _C 18:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgely Middle School[edit]

Should be merged/redirected to the district, Baltimore County Public Schools, per WP:School. As a lower level school, it is unlikely to have the required sources to pass WP:N and middle/elementary schools are not considered inherantly notable. This article fails to assert special notability, and does not list any reliable sources JGHowes ^talk - 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close If a merge is what you're after, then please place {{merge}} tags where necessary. Merge doesn't require deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN just some school Dreamspy (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~So merge it to Baltimore County Public Schools as proposed.~~ This school didn't need to come to AfD for that. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To clarify, there's really no content to "merge"; the school is already listed at Baltimore County Public Schools. What's proposed is a redirect over a blanked page. For that, I'd rather have discussion for consensus than do so unilaterally. JGHowes ^talk - 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge vs. redirect is a matter editor discretion on how much (if anything) to transfer before redirecting. An editor can retrieve any worthwhile content at a later time. For lack of a formal protocol, talk pages are a better forum than AfD to discuss school merges. In the case of generally non-notable primary schools, propose a {{merge}} or {{merge-school}}, direct discussion to an appropriate talk page, and optionally notify other editors. If nobody objects in a reasonable amount of time, WP:be bold. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merge vote struck per new information. I'll take another look. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the school district as a plausible search term. We want to take the readers to where the information is. Additionally, there is need to delete to create a redirect. -- saberwyn 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Article appears to pass notability guidelines and concerns of nominator. As my redirect not-a-vote was based purely on navigational and information seeking needs, it is no longer relevant. No stance. -- saberwyn 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as a national Blue Ribbon School (see here) meeting one of the key criteria of WP:SCHOOL. Separately, as expected, multiple, independent sources are available meeting WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most elementary and middle schools are not notable; This one is. Recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program supported by reliable sources, establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator: In view of the substantial expansion of the article and inline citations contributed by TerriersFan and Alansohn in the wake of the AfD proposal, I'd concede that notability is now established by virtue of the subject being the only "Blue Ribbon" school in the state of Maryland. (added 4/20): For this reason, I didn't also nominate Dumbarton Middle School because that school's article mentioned its "Blue Ribbon School" status.JGHowes ^talk - 04:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a "Blue Ribbon School" doesn't make a middle school notable. Nothing is ever said about the individual Blue Ribbon schools beyond simply listing them. Look at what the article says: it mentions the Blue Ribbon but doesn't say anything about what may make this school special enough to earn it. Blue Ribbon Schools Program says that schools can only receive the award once every five years, which is a blatant admission that the award doesn't recognize the best schools but is instead intended for publicity (i.e., propaganda) purposes, ensuring that as many politicians and school officials as possible will get their moment in the spotlight. Create List of Blue Ribbon Schools if you must, but it's a weak argument to use to support creation of articles on the awardees. I believe there are many such primary and secondary school awards, nearly all of them trivial, but fans of school articles use them to argue for inclusion of every school, even unremarkable primary schools. Quale (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this totally misrepresents the debate. Firstly no-one "argue for inclusion of every school, even unremarkable primary schools". There is general acceptance that most primary schools are not-notable. The Blue Ribbon award is not trivial, fewer than 5% of schools have this status and it is arguably the one really meaningful award in the US and is the result of an independent assessment. TerriersFan (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that potentially after 20 years, 100% of those schools would have earned this award. As I recall, you can receive it for being the most improved so being bad one year and then improving makes the school notable for an encyclopedia? Simply not a reward on which to base notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means nothing of the kind - less than 5% of schools in total since the scheme was introduced have attained this status - not 5% per year. The award is for the standard achieved not for simply improving. TerriersFan (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TerriersFan and JGHowes. NPOV, V, and NOR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect per the points above. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --John (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Sad Day on Pluto[edit]

Fails Wikipedia standards for verifiability and notability as per WP:MUSIC, appears to contain only original research. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*weak keep A simple Google search will show you that it doesn't fail WP:V or WP:NDusti ^{talk to me} 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I recommed that this is speedy kept, and I have tagged the article for references, that is the only thing in my opinion that is wrong with the article. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I have changed my view from a speedy keep to a weak keep. In my opinion, and maybe its wrong, if you see at least two or more sources, then your going to have an argument on notablility and verifibility. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two or more "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The only reference in the article is a series of posts in an online forum. Ravenswing 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Judging from this AfD, the band doesn't appear to be notable. Therefore, their album isn't, either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Likewise, non-notability is not inherited. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A flawed analogy; it would be difficult for a prominent work to have been created by someone deemed insignificant. Ravenswing 03:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A simple Google search yields 44 hits, the most popular of which are the Wikipedia articles themselves, the band's label, myspace, and some obscure record dealers. They album has only been reviewed by a few obscure sources.I feel like a tourist (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at Dustihowe's Google search, and I looked at mine and in either case, I can't find any resources that are 3rd party and provide anything more than a place to download, order, or just a quick blurb announcing it as a new release. Verifiable, perhaps, but not notable. -Verdatum (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. Fails WP:V Pigman☿ 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how did I know this was another article about someone's band.... Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A meager 29 unique hits on this non-notable album. Article created by an SPA whose sole Wikipedia contributions involve a group already up for AfD and a singer no longer with the band who is also up for AfD. Ravenswing 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC there are not many reliable sources about the band or album either Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An I stand corrected Delete Digging through Google searches and unable to find the above mentions from Verdatum and Ravenswing, there are no reliable sources. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ... discospinster _talk 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptic Enigma[edit]

Article fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Article is a speedy candidate under WP:CSD#A7, speedy nomination tag was removed by 199.176.183.15 (talk · contribs) on this edit. SWik78 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, you don't have to bring it here, just replace the speedy tag and warn the IP about removing them. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of the article is Nik592 (talk · contribs), the tag was removed by 199.176.183.15 (talk · contribs). As per WP:CSD, any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. There is nothing to warn the IP about since he is not doing anything against the rules unless we want to go ahead and prove sockpuppetry. This just seemed easier. SWik78 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its possible that the two could be proved as socks, but its not definate. I didn't completley read up on WP:CSD, but thanks for pointing that out. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also nothing to stop you re-adding the tag. Article asserts no notability, so I have retagged it for speedy deletion.--Beloved Freak 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wham City[edit]

Notability is not established. Most of the references are for individual members of this collective. Those that refer specifically to the collective are local press items. I edited out some POV language, unsourced trivia, and lots of external links (youtube, etc.). What was left does not seem to indicate a notable organization or collective with multiple, non-trivial third-party sources. Perhaps this could be merged into Dan Deacon, the most prominent member, but looking at his article raises a few notability questions as well freshacconcispeaktome 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was nominated for deletion in March '07 with a result of no consensus. It doesn't seem that much has been improved since then. One editor in that AfD suggested that to "keep" would require some major editing down, which I have done. However, it still does not appear to be a notable collective. freshacconcispeaktome 18:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went through the last AFD and agree with Freshacconci that the terms for one of the keep !votes was that the article needed to be cleaned up. Nothing has really improved. Also, there was a request on the talk page for some clarification. That wasn't done either. All in all, I feel the article has too much that needs done to keep it. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they don't come much less notable than this, until someone writes an opera about them. Dan Deacon just about squeaks through. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is an organized and referenced article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely non-notable.Jackmantas (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a well-referenced publication. The group is young, talented and they will only become more notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.55.60 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Despite that very little was done to refute the issues that the nominator raised, the fact that there are no other delete opinions whatsoever means that this is the only valid outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doomer[edit]

The term is a valid term, but it fails WP:N. According to WP:N, a topic will be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage means sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Although google search shows many ghits, there are not enough sources which describes this term in detail. No hint in google book search [2] and google news search [3]. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google of '"doomer" peak oil' shows 18000 pages, showing that it is an existing cultural group. It seems to be an in-house term, as well as an epithet, and as such has not been picked up by the media. This in itself should not count against it, since the use and definition of the term is documented in the 18000 existing pages. There are other terms that are related, such as Peaknik and Cornucopian. Peaknik and Doomer were redirected to Hubbert peak theory at one point, and the information moved there, but then the information was removed from that article because that's a technical article. NJGW (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GOOGLE is not the way to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Don't just point at a policy. Explain what makes you think it's not notable. Also, see Wikipedia:Search engine test. NJGW (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No significant coverage in reliable source. What made you think the term notable? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science (journal) printed an article in 2004 discussing "doomsters", which is obviously a misuse of the term "doomers". If only Wikipedia had been there for them. NJGW (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is appropriate for retention, based upon the growing public interest in both Peak Oil and Survivalism. Although the terms Doomer and Peaknik are not widely used in the mainstream, they are very well known in Peak Oil circles, and to a lesser degree in Survivalist circles.Trasel (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You failed to provide some references with significant coverage on the term. This is the main issue here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator: I hope the closing administrator will read my rationale for the deletion. The term is used, no one denying it, but the term fails WP:N, the term has no significant coverage in some reliable sources. The "Keep" votes simply ignored WP:N and WP:RS issue. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NJGW. The subject seems to be notable enough.Biophys (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yet you failed to explain how the term is notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture[edit]

"In popular culture" article that contains 15-month-old synthesis and POV violations Sceptre ^(talk) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is for second time. Interesting, notable and documented article. Yopie 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Delete Interesting yes, but it's a synthesis of ideas laced with original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not cleanup This comment is neither keep or delete. It's a notable subject; though I'm tempted to say this article should go so a real article can take it's place. As written it seems to be a smorgasborg of unlinked items with no common theme or narrative to the prose. It is well-referenced and some of the information is obvious gold. This article may not be the best place for it though. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep. None of the issues raised by the nominator are reasons for deletion. Clean it up, remove the POV and OR. The topic is encyclopedic. We have dozens of similar "...in popular culture" articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the most carefully cited popular culture articles on Wikipedia. We just went through a deletion fight a few months ago and I doubt there is anything new to be said. Dking (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep- interesting, with lots of cites. Merkin's mum 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Nominator may not realize it, but these are improvement arguments, not deletion arguments. These things can be fixed via regular editing processes; there's no reason for this to be at AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. yeah I know I often vote 'keep' at these things but there will be scholarly syntheses on the subject avaiable. Any BLP violations should be dealt with appropriately. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as discriminate and verifiable article concerning notable and interesting topic. The article has plenty of references and is not merely a list. Please also note that while the last discussion closed as "no consensus," it was marred by at least one (User:BabyDweezil) banned account's participation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as combination soapbox and cruft-magnet. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cruft" is never a valid argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But "it's interesting" is? --Badger Drink (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, as part of a larger argument, i.e. one that acknowledges all the references and presentational benefits of the article. No one takes "cruft" arguments seriously. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, let's just go with SOAPBOX. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is not a problem in the case of this article. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valuable. Needs work, but should be kept. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if Delete unless we want a fine example of yet another pseudoliterary kitchen sink drainpipe for editors to indulge their personal predilections freed from the constraints of standard editorial oversight that tends to lead to such annoyances as coherency, thematic threads, logic and neutrality. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... that wasn't a keep at all! :-P --Explodicle (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wait a minute- that depends what he means- this is Wikipedia!:) Merkin's mum 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A keep is a keep as far as I'm concerned! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... wait... Wikipedia isn't a pseudoliterary kitchen sink for editors to indulge in personal predilections? I certainly wouldn't call it a literary fountain of unbiased knowledge. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People do come here for this article... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, sometimes you just cant look away. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I hate 'X in popular culture' articles, this one is actually pretty good; the article seems to make its case that this is a notable element of pop culture, and contains plenty of relevant, verifiable examples. I'm sure it could be improved, but it's not deleteworthy. Terraxos (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no deadline and no matter what state the article may be in it is valuable enough to warrant being kept. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOFIXIT --Haemo (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete It is not encyclopedic, per WP:NOT. The subject or THEME, in this case, is far too broad - lending itself to POV determinations for inclusion, synthesis of ideas and original research. This subject matter is more appropriate to a thesis, not an encyclopedia article. Why not build them a soap box to stand on? LOL A potential magnet for trouble! Dump it! Dump it - quick! LOL! Cleo123 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is encyclopedic per WP:IS. The subject/theme is not overly broad and so long as it is cited, it is not pov. Material cited in sources is not a synthesis or original research either and WP:UGH is not a reason for deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sources. Has consensus. Has focus. Needs cleanup. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any problems with the topic itself. Tolstoy really should be added to the list of cult leaders who contributed to popular culture. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep article discusses a notable subject, references exist and others should be available; just needs some pruning. Shell ^babelfish 22:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not original research, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not WP:HOPELESS. Sounds like yet another "I don't like popular culture" nomination. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original synthesis of existing research. Too broad a topic and therefore unmaintainable and potentially infinitely expandable. Thousands of references to NRM's in literature and popular culture probably exist. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A synthesis of existing research, i.e. secondary sources is encyclopedic. THAT is not considered a problem on Wikipedia. Nor is the existence of multiple references. In fact all of that is reason for keeping. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and sourced. POV and OR problems if any should be fixed by adding more sourced material.Biophys (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby Castellano[edit]

All of the information is unsourced, and I can't find a proper source myself. Most of it seems to come off of IMDB. Plus, irrespective, a sound technician would have to be fairly high profile and not just worked on a few films to meet notability standards. -- SonicAD (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NN and unsourced Dreamspy (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he were a pioneering sound technicial (in any country), what breakthroughs/techniques did he pioneer? There's nothing to indicate this. It is rare for a sound technician to obtain notability on his own (Treg Brown is the only one that comes to mind), and working on notable motion pictures is insufficient for establishing notability behind the scenes. B.Wind (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

To determine whether there is a consensus to delete or keep this article, I look to the head count as a first approximation. I count 15 people wanting to delete the article and 26 who want to keep it. This does not include 6 "delete" and 12 "keep" opinions that I discount because they are completely unfounded in policy or are otherwise unhelpful (for instance, allegations of bad faith). On a purely numerical basis, therefore, we have the makings of a very narrow "keep" consensus.

Next, I determine whether one of our core policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV), which consensus cannot supercede, mandates deletion because a core policy violation cannot be remedied by any other means.

First, it has been put forth that the article is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, because "conflating [the allegations covered in the article] must inevitably involve some synthesis since these matters are widely separated in time and space." This is unpersuasive. Many articles and lists cover issues widely separate in time and space because they have something in common. Synthesis would only occur if it were a novel idea - original research - to group the various incidents covered here under the label "state terrorism". As demonstrated by the section "General allegations against the US", however, various notable people have had this idea before, and I cannot therefore detect any irremediable WP:SYNTH problems.

Second, the article has been said to violate WP:NPOV. POV-tainted content (e.g. "This is a list of terrorist atrocities committed by the US") can be remedied by editing, obviously, so deletion would be only warranted if the very concept of the article makes it impossible to write a neutral article on the subject. The only reason provided in this discussion why this is supposed to be the case is that there is no widely accepted, non-controversial definition of "state sponsored terrorism". That may be so, but this article can (and should) only report that various significant people have reliably voiced the opinion that such-and-such is state terrorism by the US; but not that these incidents are indeed state terrorism. In short, no credible argument has been made that no neutral article can ever be written about this subject. (I'm not addressing the WP:COATRACK argument here because that essay is not part of the core policy, but see below.)

Third, only one person seems to doubt that we can write a verifiable article about this issue, and he does so by casting doubt on the sources used as being "extremist and fringe". This ignores that an article dedicated to covering allegations may well cover allegations by extremist and fringe people, if these people's views are considered significant and well-sourced. In any case, the argument is not made that the subject matter is irremediably unverifiable. Accordingly, no core policy mandates the deletion of this article, because its deficiencies (if any) can be remedied by editorial processes which include editing or merging.

My last step is to determine whether any of the "delete" arguments are so strong (i.e., well-founded in policy), or the "keep" arguments so weak, that the "delete" arguments decisively outweigh the "keep" arguments even though there is no supermajority (our usual rough approximation of a consensus) to delete the article. I do not find that to be the case. To mention only the most significant arguments:

The argument that the article is a battlefield has never to my knowledge been accepted as a reason to delete an article. Otherwise, we would have very little coverage of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East or much else. If an article is too heavily contested, less destructive remedies such as protection, blocking edit warriors, or issuing general sanctions remain available. We have successfully dealt with Liancourt Rocks in this manner.

The article's content issues (OR, NPOV, etc.), if any, can generally be remedied through editing or renaming the article.

As to the WP:COATRACK argument, a coatrack article is an article that presumes to be about A while it is in fact dedicated to bashing B. The present article is supposed to be about allegations of state terrorism by the US, and it does in fact cover allegations of state terrorism by the US. I can't see the coats on this rack, and in any case, a coatrack article does not usually need deletion - just editing.

The "keep" arguments (apart from those I have already discounted) generally focus on this article meeting our inclusion criteria, such as WP:N and WP:V. These are not particularly weak arguments.

In sum, after evaluating the arguments that have been made, I conclude that not only is there no consensus to delete this article, but that we have a significant majority favouring to keep the article, and that the "delete" opinions are mostly not well founded in policy and precedent. The consensus emerging from this discussion, therefore, is to keep the article. Sandstein (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Comments made after I added the {{closing}} tag may not have been evaluated in this closure. A previous non-admin "keep" closure of this discussion was reverted; I endorse this reversion. Sandstein (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States[edit]

[Note: I've just moved the page to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States per the talk page; it doesn't affect my vote William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)][reply]

This article has been nominated for deletion many times and I do know that. I also know the subject is possibly notable. But looking at the lead sentence alone, I can see POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera. This is also a potential embarassment to Wikipedia because it's been tagged as such since mid-last year, and the problems go back way beyond that, possibly to the point of the article's conception. I can safely say that people aren't fixing it, they're just making noise on the talk page. In short, this is the textbook example of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia and our credibility may increase as a result of it. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFDs

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on balance. There is undoubtedly evidence that the US has been accused of state sponsored terrorism, but we have proven that we are completely unable to document it in isolation without violating every single policy we have. Repeatedly. And then violating them all again. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bad faith nomination and disruptive nomination. Any POV problem is editing, the topic is notable, it is valid topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is valid if WP:NPOV and WP:V is respected. Clearly there are problems and have been for a long time now but we do not solve these problems by declaring defeat - and that is exactly what this nom is doing. If this is deleted it will most likely be recreated shortly anyway - most likely under a new title too. A better approach here is to show those who disrupt the article the door with less discussion and more liberal use of the block button. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Having looked at this again and in view of the full protection I see now that little has changed since I walked away from it last summer - mainly because all progress was being halted by people screaming no consensus to everything including things that actually favored their side of the dispute. This article, like many others that go unnoticed, is used as a battleground by people whose motives for editing Wikipedia are purely political. With that in mind I'll be willing to support deletion if the article isn't stubbed and the people using it to promote their own POV rather than present the topic in a purely neutral way are not shown the door. I was willing to give this a chance but judging from the debate below I'm less convinced than before that we haven't already declared defeat by not handing out bans on both sides more liberally. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and has number of RS sources to back it up, just because few people are unable to clean it up per NPOV is no reason for Deletion. Taprobanus (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The massive COATRACK issues, the continual edit warring, and the rampant soapboxing aren't in and of themselves reasons to delete an article, irritating as they are. However, a large majority of the sources fail WP:V due to their extremist and fringe nature. Hugo Chavez and Noam Chomsky, despite their supporters' fervent desire, are not representative of mainstream thought on the topic. Skinwalker (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it is fair of you to dismiss Noam Chompsky as not a RS. I'm not sure you are qualified to make that judgment at all. he has written dozens of critically well received books on this subject (among others). If you don't agree with his politics then that is one thing but it doesn't make him unreliable.Protonk (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable subject with reliable sources. The current poor state of the article is not grounds for deletion but the result of poor editing practices such as edit-warring instead of constructive debate and compromise. Were this to be enforced, I could easily imagine the article becoming rather a good one. --John (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I urge all of you voting to keep to look at WP:HOPELESS: "If the subject is notable, but the current article is so blatantly biased that it's an embarrasment, or a blatant hoax where all the statements are wrong, then Wikipedia may indeed be better off without the article. Things which cause concerns over core policies like verifiability need to be addressed, and simply saying that major concerns of that nature could be solved eventually, is not going to solve the problem." definitely applies to this article. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Yasser Arafat can be brought to Feature Article status, NOTHING is HOPELESS. You severly underestimate the powers of your fellow Wikipedians.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all you are quoting that out of context. Second, you are using something that isn't even a guideline. Third, why is this article not on probation? If I didn't know better I would stub this article myself but there is a valid topic here and deleting it will only result in recreation. I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns raised but we do not solve these problems by deleting the article. With due respect I think that is a naive approach to dealing with the article at not least those who are disrupting it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How am I misquoting it? I listed the exception to the "surmountable problem" argument to avoid. Besides, "why bother?" isn't a valid reason for keeping an article (see "better here than there") Sceptre ^(talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because there is a valid article to be had if stubbed and reworked from there. Thus the exception you are quoting does not apply. If stubbed is there an actual policy or even guideline that would be violated? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sceptre, I know the sentences you quoted from WP:HOPELESS very well. I was the one who wrote them. I cannot claim to own the only valid interpretation of what I wrote, but I can say that I did not write it to encourage the deletion of articles with long-lasting problems regarding NPOV, because even an article which is contentious has information which is valuable to the reader. Articles which are an "embarrassment" to Wikipedia are things like hoaxes on otherwise valid and notable topics, articles which are just spam and don't even try to be neutral, and articles which do nothing to describe the subject suggested in the title. If several editors have worked, argued and discussed in order to provide encyclopedic coverage on a contentious topic, then that is not a "hopeless" or "embarrassing" cause. On the contrary, I would call that Wikipedia at it's best, attempting at least, to provide neutral coverage on an issue which many people have very strong and convicted opinions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, I suggest you look at WP:DP which states: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. I believe that trumps WP:HOPELESS, since WP:DP is policy. — Becksguy (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep none of the reasons stated by the nom "POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera" are valid criteria for deletion. The topic is WP:N with numerous WP:RS. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear the consensus regarding this article disagrees with you, or the tags on it would have been gone a long time ago. Jtrainor (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jtrainor, how ridiculous, everyone always argues that their side has "consensus", it is the most abused word on wikipedia. Personally, I find that people usually point out consensus when there is none.

If this article is so againt "consensus", why has it survived 7 AfDs? Why have there been so many editors who have fought against the large scale deletion vandalism? I think the tag simply shows that there is no consensus, and that the editors who have been fighting this vandalism are more tolerant of different views than editors on other pages. Try adding a "POV tag" on the September 11th page, it will be removed by those editors in less than an hour. Trav (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per TheRedPenOfDoom. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the article could theoretically be improved, but on balance it may simply be better if it were deleted and other articles expanded. As Guy says, there has been so much edit-warring over it that if it is ever to be improved it will involve a lot of people being banned/heavily restricted in their editing. Some people may like the idea of that, but I think that would be a shame. John Smith's (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly notable by the numerous sources to be had. All of the things that are listed by the nominator are things that can be fixed and repaired through normal editing. Controversy surrounding a subject is not a good reason to delete an article, nor is controversy surrounding the article itself. Regarding the comment above me, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. We're supposed to be objective here, and if you can't be, then don't edit difficult articles. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about others, not myself. John Smith's (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation. While the subject is notable, we could do much better by simply nuking it and starting again. While I am usually the first to claim any article is better than non at all, in some cases the issues outweigh the benefits. Since we can most-likely assume that it will be recreated, then I see no reason not to start over, as I don't think it could end up much worse than this. Random 89 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is sourced and describe real facts. I suppose that this article has been tagged for deletion due to politcal reasons.User:Lucifero4

WP:AGF William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Notable subject, appalling article. Its just a list of areas, most (all?) of which are covered elsewhere. It makes no attempt to integrate these disparate threads together, which would be the justification for its existence William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I share the frustration of those who feel that the article, in its current form, is in a shambles. However, this article has survived a total of seven prior AfD attempts, and has a substantial history of turmoil. Deletion is a drastic step, tantamount to asserting that there is no salvageable version anywhere in the history of the article, and thus in effect overturning the collective weight of all previous AfDs. Given the fact that the article is currently not in a "stable" state (over half of it was deleted recently, restored, deleted, restored...), I suggest that this AfD be postponed until heads are cooler, and responses are more tempered. silly rabbit (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awful, unsalvageable article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad as it stands. Several useful references in there, though, that address this topic specifically. I don't think that we can or should delete it given those circs. Don't see what this nomination is doing. Sceptre, please stop nomming things for deletion that you know are going to receive lots of keep support unless you have a novel argument to make. If you really want our credibility to increase, go delete real SYNTH articles like Denial of the Holodomor, not something that has half a dozen bloody academic seminars a year devoted to it. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being and fix if possible. The title is POV even with "allegations" added and grammatically wrong (the allegations are about the USA not by the USA, an allegation of state terrorism by the USA would be the USA saying about some other countries actions "that's state terrorism"). I think this is a case of an article which hasn't clearly stated what its topic is. Perhaps "Allegations that the USA has broken international law" is a better topic. Also consider merge to other topics.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? "by the United States" is modifying "state terrorism", not "allegations." 70.227.26.127 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COATRACK X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I took this off my watchlist because I was sick of dealing with it, and the article I see now bears little resemblance to the one I saw a couple of months ago. I don't know if that's good or bad, but the deletions seem excessive. This is an extremely notable topic and that's what is at issue here. The problem with this article is that over the years it has been worked on largely by two groups of people: 1) People who love it, and want to include every possible accusation, sometimes even if it goes against NPOV; 2) People who hate it and want it deleted and spend most of their time putting it up for AfD, deleting massive sections, or adding irrelevant material for balance. The former group was largely owning the article a few months ago, now the latter seems to be moving in. Unsurprisingly the result of all of this has not been a good article (though it's not, or wasn't, nearly as bad as some are making it). However deleting it is clearly the wrong way to go. The topic is notable and quite frankly deleting it makes us look a little bit ridiculous if we do so. I can't help but notice that no one has put Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, or Allegations of state terrorism by Iran up for deletion (all of which are linked to at the bottom of this page). I find that very revealing, and an outside observer might wonder why we can have those articles but not this one, why this has been put up for AfD and those have not. Basically the answer is that this article creates a lot of drama because more folks on en.wikipedia have strong feelings about US foreign policy than the foreign policy of Russia or Sri Lanka. But that's a terrible rationale, and to delete this and keep the others (perhaps someone will put them up for AfD now, though I don't see a basis for that) is, I think, to violate our core policy on NPOV. This project has its base of operation in the US and is very heavily "staffed" by American volunteers. Sceptre thinks the article in its current state makes Wikipedia look a bit ridiculous (and I don't necessarily disagree with that), but we look far more ridiculous by deleting an article critical of US foreign policy because the lot of us can't figure out a way to edit it properly. My keep rationale is per WP:N, but I hope the other component of my argument will be considered.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you talk about the "allegations.. sri lanka" article. As the one who moved it to its present title from a ridiculous "State terr by/in SL" or something, let me tell you that that article has been at the center of vehement disputes too. I am not sure but I think it has also been put up for deletion once or twice.. or has come pretty close. Also, the reason this article is AfD-ed more often is not because this is a more high profile target or anything, but simply because there's several orders of magnitude more people editing American articles(not just this one) compared to those editing SLankan articles. We could probably count the number of active editors on the Sri Lankan project on two hands. The problem with these articles is that there simply is no way in the wiki process to ensure that it will read even remotely balanced. And we keep proclaiming that NOR, NPOV etc are non-negotiable. UCS-->delete is the way to go. it is WP:NOTABLE .. so keep it smacks of BURO. Sarvagnya 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically making the same point that I am but coming to a different conclusion. I'm arguing that it's precisely because there are far more folks editing articles on this and other American topics that this article has been especially controversial and thus put up for AfD time and time again. Few are arguing here that the subject is not notable (which usually would be how we decide a matter like this), rather they are saying the article is a pain and we can't maintain it properly. That fact is a function of the fact that there are a ton of American/interested-in-American-topics editors on this site and that this particular topic is extremely politically contentious. By following the "this article is more trouble than it's worth" delete rationale we end up deleting an article critical of American foreign policy (because we argue too much about it which decreases the article quality) while keeping identical articles on two countries with whom the United States has significant disputes, namely Iran and Russia. I think that is a significant NPOV problem, and it's instructive to consider how a Russian or an Iranian would feel about all of this. As to your last comment, if I read you right you seem to be saying that even though the topic is notable, a desire to keep it is a form of rules-lawyering (WP:BURO). Simply because the notability guidelines support the keep side and not the delete side does not mean that the former's invocation of said guidelines is a form of instruction creep. If the topic was not notable delete commenters would clearly be mentioning that (as many did in previous AfD's), however it is so they are not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it cant be deleted, it should be hacked down and reduced to a stub. Barring WP:NOTE, articles like this fly in the face of every known policy and guideline. Sarvagnya 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. The article is being fixed. There was a problem with the article name trying to make it cover opposite subjects. Well it cannot. The article is not a debate but reference to facts. It must stay on topic as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States I support the move by William M. Connolley. Igor Berger (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a highly bias POV fork aimed at attacking America based entirely on anti-american allegations. The United States government does not practice state terrorism, and wikipedia should not promote that conspiracy theory. Yahel Guhan 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel it biased and POV but it is not. There are many articles that deal with controversial issues, should we be deleting all of them? Should we delete abortion, fascism, anti-semitism, anti-americanism, waterboarding, psuedoscience, there are more. We are not censored! Igor Berger (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the new name (move the talk page too, please, Dr. admin -- why would an admin not move the whole thing?) The topic is notable. The correct way to fix an article on a notable topic is not to delete the article, it is to improve it. Listing Port (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong speedy keep As the other editor said: "none of the reasons stated by the nom (which are mostly not true either) "POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera" are valid criteria for deletion. This is yet another bad faith nomination to try to censor WP of information that they don't like others to know about. Clearly a POV motivated attack by conservatives, again. The fact is that the topic is very notable per WP:N and is loaded with numerous reliable sources per WP:RS. This is a no brainer a speedy keep that says a lot more about those who want to delete it than it does about this article. I also note that they have vandalized the article by removing lots of soured material right before this nom. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Please note that this use has been identified as a sockpuppet of Giovanni33 and banned accordingly - this may require a check when this AfD is concluded. John Smith's (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected sockpuppet; not proven, and therefore not guilty. And even if that were true (which I doubt), it doesn't effect the strength of argument or its validity. — Becksguy (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and user has been unblocked per AGF. I'm unstriking his comments as he is a legitimate member of the community.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iran. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iraq. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lebanon. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/El Salvador. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all these previous irrelevant "additions" Yahel Guhan 05:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some of them because these countries are associated with allegation of US State terrorism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Neutral-It looks sourced but the sources are not online so it's hard to verify. Depending on the quality of the sources that are not online, it could be a WP:SYNTH or it could turn out to be a WP:FA. I recommend that the sources get verified before deletion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Delete This article, as stated, has had problems since it's creation, including a cabal of editors with severe WP:OWN issues who edit war and use sockpuppets to ensure that the article reflects a specific POV, instead of following NPOV. It consists of scads and scads of poorly sourced material and duplicates things in many other articles, in some cases, having individual sections even longer than actual articles on the subject. I also note the consistent accusations of bad faith noms in virtually every AfD this article has been through, without a flick of evidence, often from the very same editors that edit war so frequently on this article. I urge all admins to keep strict control of this AfD and not let these spurious violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to go unchallenged. Jtrainor (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I encourage admins reading this AfD to read [[4]] and remove spurious puppet votes accordingly. Jtrainor (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have it for other countries. POV does not mean something should be deleted, it means verified and cleaned-up. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On balance, better to have it, then not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the new name seems to sort out a lot of problems. To delete it when articles on other countries exist will look like censorship. There seem to be enough people here with strong views to ensure a balanced article so I can't see why the "poorly sourced" and OR sections have not been removed. Sophia 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its sourced and highly informative, but it clearly needs to be protected(temporarily) and more discussion needs to take place to try and get it into a relatively stable condition. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why risk the appearance of censorship? I don't see any problems that can't be addressed by following WP guidelines and policy. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic (now that it's been renamed, at least). POV will obviously be a problem in an article like this, but that's an argument for more diligent editing, not deletion. Klausness (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article (and it's talk page especially) should be classified as being of historical interest and never be deleted. I doubt there is anywhere on internet where people have bickered and reverted each other back and forth with so much futility and puerility. Also if this article were to be deleted the people who like arguing like this all day would not disappear. They would just move on to other articles , possibly ones which are of actual utility, rather than this disjointed collection of true but unrelated accusations. As for giving wikipedia a bad name I'm more worried about all the vanity and Pokemon articles that are springing up all over the place. Jackaranga (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we deleted every article we had conflicts over, Wikipedia would be a veritable block of swiss cheese. The solution is to crack down on problematic editing, not to delete. krimpet ✽ 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill The article and start over. Keep the old version for he historical record, and start over with a clean and mostly NPOV version. 192.77.125.21 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State terrorism has no agreed on definition. It is not an international legal term unlike terrorism by non-state actors. As such it is just a perjorative term used by certain sensationalist writers. The term lacks content besides being inflammatory. Could as well have an article called Very bad things done by the United States.

Also, the article has been a dumping ground for all sorts of US criticisms not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism. Added by anonymous editors who personally are convinced that something is very bad=terrorism even if the source does not make any such claim. As such the article will always be a battleground. There are other articles for criticizing the United States on human rights, foreign policy, or more specific grounds. The article thus has no purpose.Ultramarine (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if it came to Iran. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any similarly named article for reasons given.Ultramarine (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are multiple definition that were most recently deleted from the article: [5] oddly enough by someone voting delete. You should be aware, you supported the deletion in this revert: [6] --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple possible claimed definitions. No agreement.Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "possible definitions." An official definition by the United States government, seems to be agreed upon by the United States government, which is at question. Further if the article is exploring or discussing a classification of events, the definition does not have to be exact to all instances. The definition of "war" depends on who is applying it, a government, a lay person, a lawyer, etc. Making this argument of there being no one universal definition agreed upon by all man, false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am talking about "state terrorism" not terrorism by non-state actors. Regarding non-state actors there is also no agreement but at least several international conventions. Although they use different definitions. The US also has several different internal definitions of terrorism by non-state actors in different laws and documents. Regarding state terrorism there are no legal definition at all. It does not exist as a legal concept in international laws.Ultramarine (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

States are regulated by laws regarding war crimes, human rights etc. To quote former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan who has stated that it "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"Ultramarine (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a red herring, the article is not discussing a legal construct. As noted in my point above, much like the term "war", it is both a classification of conflicts, and to some degree a legal status of an event. Arguing something has no legal definition does not make it vanish. The fact that many writers, over 20+ cited in the article and quoted, use the term and apply their definitions, as well as the United States of America, there seems to be an existence and agreed upon notion of what State terrorism is. All which appear to circle around the notion of the "state" committing terrorism against a civilian populace. Please do not present any further red herrings. While it is a nice quote, it does not make "state terrorism" disappear from existence and further proves that your argument that a "legal definition" must exist to be false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add, your argument would actually be a valid reason, if accepted, to delete the article on state terrorism. Do you find that article to be in need of addition to this AfD? --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "state terrorism" and terrorism by non-state actors are different things. The US certainly has no definition of "state terrorism". All people using the term "state terrorism" have invented their own personal definition of "state terrorism", usually very different if they bother to state any definition at all, and claims that something is this. As such it just a personal perjorative opinion. Equivalent to "very bad". Also, terrorism does not have to be against civilians. For example, one definition of terrorism states "Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime" which includes certain military targets. So no agreement even on this. The state terrorism article describes the problems with the concept.Ultramarine (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name four definitions presented by non-online sources. You make an accusation and something tells me you are making it up, before I make an accusation however I will afford you the opportunity to tells us all four of those definitions in offline sources. For you to go one further and state that "state terrorism" is the equivalent of "very bad" is a pretty silly argument, what you are alleging is the United States government places entire countries on a list, blocks trade with them, enlists embargo's just because they are "very bad" with no clear definition or understanding of what they are saying. I think common sense in this case has defeated your argument. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will have no problem finding four very different definitions in Definition of terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and that is why we do not use the term "terrorism" in Wikipedia? You have again proven yourself wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we do no have articles called "Terrorism by Hamas" etc. We mention specific allegations of terrorism by specific actors in the Hamas article, for example. As it should be. No reason to treat the US worse than Hamas.Ultramarine (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how can we possible say Hamas committed terrorism if there is no agreed upon legal definition of it? Perhaps because its understood what terrorism is, and everyone making the accusation does not need to have the exact same definition in mind. Again, you have proven yourself wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not in fact say that "Hamas committed terrorism". Instead formulations such as "x designates Hamas as a terrorist group" etc. None of this in a special article. There are no articles called Terrorism by Hamas, IRA, ETA etc. Why is the US treated worse? Ultramarine (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, poor poor pooor picked on United States! it seems equally likeley that we dont (yet) have a "Terrorism by Hamas" article because terrorism is already covered 'within' the Hamas article. As the Hamas article grows and RS material accumulates it is possible that a point will come that a spin off article is created to cover that topic in depth, just as "State Terrorism by the US" is a spin off article on the US.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because such article names are not allowed by policy. See [7] There is very little in the article now discussed that are actually allegation of US state terrorism. See [8]. Those few remaining could be mentioned in a foreign policy article. No reason for treating the US worse than Hamas and IRA.Ultramarine (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) You have again proven me right. By the fact that we have sources that are accepted that state an event is terrorism, and we then take those WP:RS sources and restate what they say, is proof that no universally accepted definition is required for us to report what the sources that meet our policies are stating. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are various sensationalist authors using the term "state terrorism". No reason to treat the US worse than Hamas, IRA, ETA etc and create a separate article for these allegations.Ultramarine (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following your line of reasoning you would move this content into the United States article, so its no worse, and certaintly no better, since we are not biased on Wikipedia, then Hamas or the IRA. Create a section in the US article titled "Militancy and terrorism" and let me know how that works out for you. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote earlier. " There is very little in the article now discussed that are actually allegation of US state terrorism. See [9]. Those few remaining could be mentioned in a foreign policy article. No reason for treating the US worse than Hamas and IRA."Ultramarine (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment Ultramarine has previously (and frequently) made the statement "anonymous editors" "[dump] ... all sorts of US criticisms not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism" and has yet to show that this has even happened, much less that such unsourced items/vandalism have remained in the article for long. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. See [10]. Lots of quotes by for example Amnesty anjd Human Rights Watch not accusing the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YEE HAW!!!! The DEAD HORSE makes yet another appearance! See any number of the refutations of this claim on the talk page. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems this has been done to death already: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] When will people get the message that it is better to just work on fixing the article, instead of renaming it to its most contentious title, then nominating for deletion. Oddly the people voting delete are the ones responsible for its recent name change and band wagon deletion nomination. It is almost humorous that JTrainer would allege there is a cabal protecting the article, when the only constant is the names of people supporting the deletion and renaming of the article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about a lot; renaming it to its most contentious title, then nominating for deletion for starters. Still, we look forward to you living up to your words and actually helping to fix it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great points and arguments, "your wrong" is always so persuasive. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. POV allegations and article problems aside, is this topic notable enough for inclusion in our encyclopedia? Definitely. If there's no doubt about this, should its deletion be discussed here? Definitely not. Plrk (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many of the editors who vote to delete have been guilty of vandalism, deleting large well referenced sections of the article which doesn't meet their own POV. I am frustrated at pretty must every editor in this article, but I think this article belongs on wikipedia. If history is any guide, this AfD will end up "keep" by no consensus, and then this same group of editors, angry at the failed AfD, will continue to vandalize the page, deleting large well referenced sections they disagree with. See you all at the next Afd. Trav (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has seen massive improvements, sources prove importance. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that this is a frivolous nomination by a party on a crusade against controversial articles: [18]

[19] [20] [21] [22] Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I'd also suggest we delete Allegations of state terrorism by Iran, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, and Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka for the same reasons. Wikipedia is not the place to publish allegations, regardless of how well sourced. It is totally, utterly, unencyclopedic to do so. Creating articles based upon "allegations" of this or that will nearly always be a WP:COAT or POV issue. BWH76 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a notable social discourse (see comment below). How should this social discourse be represented in an NPOV manner here on wikipedia? One thing is certain, one can't pretend to legitimately represent it without having first done sufficient legwork to understand the themes discussed in the literature.BernardL (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although practically all editors attempting to delete the article have yet to evidence significant knowledge of the relevant literature, it nevertheless exists and does testify to the fact that this is a notable social discourse. Wikipedia looks very bad if it systematically tries to suppress such a discourse. There was recently a heavy-handed mass deletion of material, amongst which was considerable material from numerous reliable sources who uncontroversially describe in the course of their analysis significant U.S. complicity in state terrorism. Some of these sources are among the leading authorities on particular phenomena associated with the subject. Any article on the subject sincerely trying to educate readers would do well to take into consideration material from these experts. Justifications for the massive nuke job have been extremely feeble, saying that the issue of size necessitated all that abrupt removal. There were indeed viable alternatives to the totalitarian approach reactively adopted by William Connelly. What follows is a partial list of sources used in the article prior to this illegitimate deletion, there remain far more numerous reliable sources who have not made it into the article:

Richard Falk, Emeritus Prof International Law, Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories

Mark Selden, Bartle Prof of Sociology and History and Binghamton

Arno Mayer, Prof of History at Princeton, one of the world’s renowned experts in Holocaust Studies.

Jorge I. Dominguez, Prof of International Affairs, Harvard

Greg Grandin, Prof of History, New York University, member of the Guatemalan Truth Commission team.

J. Patrice McSherry, Professor of Political Science, Long Island University

Michael Stohl, currently professor of Communications at UCSB, a world renowned terrorism expert who has made a significant impact in the field.

Stephen Rabe, Professor of History at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Michael McClintock, researcher and director for Amnesty International, for almost 20 years.

Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)

Paul Farmer , Presley Professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard University

Clara Nieto, Colombian writer and former diplomat in the Colombian mission to the United Nations, and as Latin American regional director for UNESCO.

Michael Walzer, professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed professor of International Relations at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex,

Raúl Molina-Mejía is Adjunct Associate Professor of History at Long Island University

Cynthia Arnson director of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Cecilia Menjívar, Ph.D. Cowden Distinguished Associate Professor. School of Social and Family Dynamics. Program in Sociology. Arizona State University

Nestor Rodriguez, Professor and Chair in the Department of Sociology at the University of Houston.BernardL (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep See Bigtimepeace's comments for the most insightful analysis of the situation. The article currently exists in two oscillating forms, each over-zealously defended by groups of editors. One group wants accusations against the US aired in utmost detail, the other group wants them minimised or gone. One form the article takes is a laundry list of accusations of US terrorism. That form needs summarising and perhaps some trimming of sources, but it is not "an embaressment to wikipedia". It's just a typical over-verbose wikipedia article with mostly decent content but poor editing. The other form the article takes is a cut-back version that is also not well summarised with some sections that include notable accusations removed. This form needs fleshing out with summarised content from the other form. However, this second form is not an "embaressment to wikipedia" either. Neither of the current forms is terribly biased or POV, it's the editing that's embarressing (especially the never-ending revert war that prevents constructive editing) and most wikipedia readers probably never notice the editing. The article is a battleground in a nationalistic edit war, but the actual content is just average wikipedia stuff. It doesn't need deleting, it needs to have all the reverting stopped somehow so that each section can be discussed in the talk page until consensus is reached. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, this article is absolutely not a WP:COATRACK. A coatrack is when the apparent topic of the article is undermined by another topic in the content. The apparent topic of this article is accusations of US terrorism. The "coat" hung over this is what? More accusations of US terrorism. That's pretty inflammatory to some US people. But it's not a lurking theme, it contains exactly what it says on the box.--Ryan Paddy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG keep - who cares that this article is a blatant POV push job? Indeed, a lot of people who edit this article and vote here clearly agree with the sentiments described therein, so the NPOV guidelines be damned. After all, as many have said, this is clearly a bad faith nomination (as one person said, "vandalism"), despite the fact it was made by an Englishman, and other non-American (liberal even) long time users are calling for delete. Why should we pay attention to WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK when it's notable? Thank God for all the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PER, etc. to help state this is a clear keep. Like one user said, "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" - if you don't like the fact this is clearly a biased article and violates our core policies (and always has and always will), you can just ignore it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our core policies are notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Accusations of terrorism between notable nations is a notable phenomenon, verifiable by reliable sources; in no way does it even come remotely close to violating those core policies. Regarding the only other things, COATRACKS are articles that deals with something other than the subject in such a way as to make it appear that the subject is being discussed but the article is in reality about something else; the subject is clearly discussed in its article, and an WP:NPOV issue is a problem that should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Please read the top of the AfD page. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I would encouraged none of you to actually look at the article history or make sure that the POV stays out of the article after your "strong keep - it can be fixed despite the overwhelming precedent" arguments. After all, there's no responsibility for you to make such a claim when it has been made 7 times before to no avail, and then to uphold it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to have a look at the RfC process or perhaps the third opinion pages. Those are how problems with POV are dealt with when they can't be resolved by the regular editors of that page. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. I wonder if all of us claiming that "State terrorism by [insert country name here]" articles would not be inherently biased would be so forgiving about an article titled Accusations that liberal appeasement leads to terrorism? After all, I truly doubt this should be a redlink, given the precedents we've all set here... The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that article. I wouldn't agree with its contents, but I think that's a fairly notable cultural phenomenon as well. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh please do you have even one comment or insight that comes close to a valid reason for deletion TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)? 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The NPOV guidelines clearly state that facts about opinions are valid content. That's what this article consists of, facts about political opinions - many of which are from notable scholars, as listed by BernardL. The article does not state or imply that these opinions are correct - that would be a "POV push job", this is not. The warning tags are correct in the sense that the neutrality is disputed by some editors. But those editors are incorrect, the article is largely neutral and I imagine it is the overall idea of discussing US terrorism that they find objectionable. That's why deleting this article would be a clear case of censorship. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The subject matter is arguably notable, but in terms of content this still is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. I doubt deleting it and starting over would achieve anything useful; it's just going to have to be gradually fixed, as I know many people have been trying to do for some time. I'm not optimistic about this article, but I suppose even a bad article on the subject is better than none. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, bad faith nomination as part of a WP:POINT crusade against controversy/allegation articles. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor into a list, based on the ToC. Unless a delete is salted, this will come back. As such, it will never be better than a coatrack for all sorts of polemics, so if individual allegations/incidents (or sets thereof) can stand as articles by themselves, this page can be the collector. Who knows, it might then become a category. But an article is ridiculous, because the subject is limitless. rudra (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation as a fully-protected stub for expansion, where all edits are discussed before addition. This article (with its long, divisive history) is one of the worst flashpoints on Wikipedia. While I am ambivalent about the possibility of creating a policy-compliant article on the topic, I am quite sure that in its current form, this isn't it. What we currently have is nothing more than a laundry list of grievances from many sources, some of which totally lack any form of reliability (my personal favorite is the Indymedia San Francisco article supporting the reference to some non-notable group in "The Hague, Belgium", in the Philippines section); I also found links to blogs and to personal websites to columnists with no qualifications in the field of international relations/international law. Horologium (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Сomment Mr. Roger's acronym for today is Coatrack, pronounced, Coa-track, Coatrack is an essay (not a policy or guideline), which is irrelevent to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States but a lot of "deletionist" seemed to have embraced anyway in the latest failed AfD.Inclusionist (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I'm surprised this this is still up: it's an obvious speedy keep and a POV, bad faith Afd (either that or they really are ignorant of WP policy). Either way, its noteworthy that none of the arguments to delete hold up. They are either 100% false, as has been shown, or they are not based on policy. It's also relevant to note, as others have pointed out, the same editors who are want to delete it, do so after getting getting rid of the the articles best sources, purging it of its value (to make it look less notable and less referenced?)--all in the name of "fixing the article"--while here they show they don't want to fix it, they want it gone. Seems like they want it both ways. As BernardL, above, points just some of the impeccable sources that were deleted, all making explicit claims supporting the subject matter. I understand nationalism and jingoism but WP is not censored, so this is not a place to allow such emotive feelings to get the better of us. We report factually encyclopedic knowledge that elucidates, educations, and expands our horizons. Those who find this incompatible with their faith system (faith that the US has not engaged in state terrorism repeatedly) should simply not edit here. WP policies and rules are paramount.

This delete attempt like the many others before are raise serious issues: Will WP be censored or be a real place of learning? Instead of arguing with these editor about deleting, we should be instead talking about promoting this article to Featured Status. We were getting close to that before they came in to disrupt it again. We have some of the best sources possible, mostly academic journal from top professors in their field, as BernardL, has shown.

Let me give some examples of deleted material, on the false claims that they are either not good sources or they are not related to State Terrorism. Jeffrey A. Sluka in the anthology “Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror,' writs that, 'Latin America and Asia are the two main areas identified by Amnesty International as centers of growth of state terror...” The region has been one of the focal points of the literature on state terrorism. Sluka states that “at the end of the 1970’s, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of the existence of a new global “epidemic” of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. “sphere of influence,” and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the United States client states in Latin America. (Sluka, Jeffrey A. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, 8). Likewise, the contributions of Michael McClintock, former senior researcher at Amnesty International, have been cited as among the pioneering works about state terrorism in Latin America. (McSherry, Patrice J. Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, 15-17). McClintock is notable for making the connection between state terrorist practice in Guatemala with previous practices by counterinsurgency forces in Vietnam and the Philippines. Various analysts have charged that the U.S. is significantly complicit in terror regimes in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, Uruguay, and Colombia, citing mainstream human rights organizations such as AI material and Human Rights Watch that these scholars analyze as descriptions of politically motivated campaigns of violence and terror by the powerful over the poor. They either assign major complicity if not outright blame directly on US policies. Is this material relevant and topical, is it notable? This is without question that case, despite those who want to see this forever buried along with its many victims.

Whole sections are wiped out. Never mind that we have top sources that say, for example that the US atomic bombings of Japan represent "the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th century."^[1]^[2]

If we disagree that is fine, but its not relevant. What is relevant is that we have many top scholars who make this argument. Yet, they deleted entire sections that were very well referenced, balanced, notable, and on topic on the basis that they don't personally agree with what is being said. I do not exaggerate this point. So now they want to delete the article and change the subject because they don't personally agree with it. Again, nice to know, but its not policy. It has no basis on WP editing protocol.

Historian Howard Zinn writes: "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is this a valid source, topical, relevant, and notable? Sure but its deleted.

Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."^[3] Deleted.

Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and studies political violence, Just War Theory, Terrorism, and Humanitarian intervention.^[4] He writes in Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World: "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."^[5] Another impeccable source. But since the POV editors don't personally agree with these professors, they delete them.

Mark Selden, professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and author of War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century, writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."^[6] Guess what? Deleted.

Richard A. Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He writes "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays Qaddafi as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale... Any counter terrorism policy worth the name must include a convincing indictment of the First World variety."^[7]. He also writes (but it was deleted, too):

Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy.
— Richard Falk, War and State Terrorism^[7]

Despite all this quite valid material, and much more, nothing was allowed to remain--not a single word about this being an instance of State terrorism, because these conservative POV warriors don't agree with it. Blanking half the article, really amounts to a form of vandalism in my view. This continued AfD attempts are just a variation of the same.

I could go on, but you get the point. There was balancing material added, of course, it was trimmed down, as requested, and added with consensus. So what happens? They come back and this time delete it because they say its too small. They delete other sections because they say its too big. Any baseless argument will do as long as this information is suppressed, censored. Well, this is not going to happen, not in wikipedia. I think they must have confused this place with Conservopedia. In this place we have standard and respect knowledge. This place is trying to be a real encylopedia that is not afraid to engage in subjects that are uncomfortable, or controversial--we report and document all notable knowledge about the world around us. That is what an encylopedia is all about. At least any good one.

That is what is at stake here: Is WP to be a US-centric pseudocyclopedia dominated by right-wing ideology, despite the NPOV facade, where criticism of the U.S. invariably needs to be suppressed, excused by comparing it with other demons, whitewashed, or rationalized- never mind the memory of the victims? No. I prefer we be a genuine encyclopedia, and this article is in its best tradition. That is why I think it also matters that editors working on it should have an extensive reading of the scholarly literature on the subject under their belt. The fact that many don't explains a lot about the continued bickering. If they would just do a little studying on the topic, and check their personal biases at the door, we'd be a lot better off content wise. In the mean while its clearly a KEEP KEEP KEEP.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope you don't think that most of what you said there was a valid argument. Not only did you accuse others of being biased while shamelessly demonstrating your own, but you continue here to cherrypick facts that support your conclusions. In fact, one of the same problems with this article as your rant here is that while much of the article is sourced, it in many cases sources opinions, not neutral studies or statistics. And while there is an argument that this is valid in an article discussing allegations, then I don't think the article is properly arranged at all. It should not be split into sections by event, but by the commentator making the allegations. For example, Chomsky could have a section (which I'm sure would thrill you). All that is why I above voted delete. I have no prejudice against recreation, but I think that this article in its present form is not a net positive for the encyclopedia. Also, you may want to check out WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Random 89 07:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do think its valid, but there is more than one argument there. I comment on the nature of this AfD, the basis for it, why its a bad faith nom, all stemming from the problems the article suffers--not because it is not notable, not well referenced but because its too well referenced, too notable, and a very hot political potato that it seems some editors can't check their emotional reactions at the door. Its as if there is a blind spot, and one is no longer dealing with trying to write an informative encylopedia article but pov pushing. So yes, its primarily a problem of editors, not the article. And, yes, its primarily (but not exclusively) by the conservative editors who want the information suppressed, deleted. If not for this, it could be a featured article soon. About bias, yes, I think we are all have bias, but I argue that we need to check that at the door, and abide by WP policies and guidelines instead of suppressing information simply because one does not share the POV being expressed. This is not a straw man, either: its the actual arguments used on the talk page: the source says X, but "I think they are wrong, its my view that it is not state terrorism...delete!" That is silly and not following policy. Its putting ones POV and emotion in place of policies and rationality. The same thing is going on with this, yet another, AfD. That is why it should be a speedy keep and dismissed. Its nonsense. Now, I agree with your other points. The article needs work, particularly with more neutral studies, overviews that better explain the nature of state terrorism, and the US role in it. But, those excellent sources by Human Rights Watch on Guatemala, for example were deleted, too. I also agree the article is not necessarily properly organized; some sections are too long. The Japan section was not one of those but they reduced it to nothing. Organizing by commentator instead of area, is an idea that should be discussed on the talk page. I'm open to all ideas from all POV's, provided that consensus is respected, and WP policies are followed. The problem is that we have a group of editors who do neither, and this AfD is an extension of that. We need admins enforcing these policies and be examples of proper conduct, not the opposite, which is what we have seen with the recent mass deletions, and abusive conduct there against editors they are in conflict with. They made things worse, not better. The article was doing fine and making much progress (not that all change is always a step forward), but it was improving, slowly but surely. Its things like this, and the recent attacks on much of best sourced material in an attempt to get rid of it all that puts a stop to progress since then the article gets locked.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Giovanni, you're the last person who should be accusing anyone of abusive editing, given your history of incivility and personal attacks on poor Ultramarine and anyone else who attempts to improve this garbage heap masquerading as an article. Jtrainor (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThat is quite false. Diffs to support any of your claims, I wonder? I'd be very interested to see it. And, yes, thank you for confirming what you think of valid sourced material that you don't personally agree with politically. You simply call it names. Very weak argument you have there.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this an AfD or an article talk page?Nick Connolly (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationel for deletion given by the nominator is very poor. If an article is POV, off topic ect it needs to be edited not deleted. Other claims that these are allegations and not truth need to brush up on their wiki rules. Indeed all of wikipedia's articles are either allegations or collections of claims. Wikipedia editors are not here to try to prove anything weather it be true or false. We just say what other say and since this article is notable and is well backed by reference it should stay. Watchdogb (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, the article being an apparent warzone isn't grounds to delete it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although this article belongs to Anti-Americanism, one should not be offended by its existence. It merely describes opinions existing in the world. Biophys (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Only the glaring systematic bias of Wikipedia's US-centric contributors would let this AfD go on as far as it has. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWow, this is pretty amazing to read. I am unhappy to hear Wikipedia has this problem about keeping this article. Why is there this kind of debate? Of course this article should remain. I am sure it has problems but that can be fixed. I do not see any good points by those who want to delete it. I am familiar with the topic and there is a great deal of academic, high quality material that elaborates on this subject.DrGabriela (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete without prejudice to recreation. Notability is not a suicide pact to keep atrocious articles and I seriously distressed to see it used in such a fashion more and more often. Notability simply says that that this topic is notable for inclusion. It does not indicate that we need to keep articles that are in such a dire state as to be nearly unsalvageable. I don't think anyone is disputing that the topic is notable. Arguments to keep based purely upon notability ignore the arguments being made for deletion. Making notability the be-all end-all for keeping an article not only flies in the face of good sense, but also runs contrary to multiple principles and policies (as an easy example, WP:NOT). Vassyana (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unsalvageable is an opinion, and a wrong one. A suicide pact is deleting articles to eliminate conflicts. The only issue with any article that cannot be dealt with by editing is lack of intrinsic notability, and no one is claiming that here. POV, BLP, UNDUE, and similar issues can, and have been fixed by editing. The primary problem with this article is that it's a war zone. And that can be managed also, with blocking, protection, RfC, and mediation. Deleting will just result in a new battle once it's recreated, in the same or new form. Needs improvement is not a policy based reason to delete, per WP:DP. — Becksguy (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, you haven't given a reason for deletion. Just calling it "atrocious" could mean anything. What do you think is atrocious about it? --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - An above user said delete without prejudice to recreation? That would be the same as continued editing. The only people who seem to want to delete it a Pro-America Misinformation mongers. This article not only should exist, it needs to exist. Hooper (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note the large amount of incivility and lack of good faith towards the nom. Jtrainor (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ this makes me laugh! funny! GundamsЯus (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go do something useful instead of wikistalking me and inserting your unwanted two cents wherever I go? Jtrainor (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with following the edits of other editors. I monitor the edits of quite a few editors whom I don't believe entirely understand what AfD is for in order that their arguments can be properly refuted. Contribution logs are public for good reason. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as well as a lot of bad faith regarding the editors of the article, belittling their contributions to the article. Hopefully this can be closed soon, and the increased emotions will subside. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason politics is not suitable for dinner table conversation. People feel very strongly about politics, and especially politics that relate to patriotism, or the lack of it, depending on one's POV. It's sometimes very difficult to leave emotions at the editing door, despite that being the goal. The good news is that usually these battles run their course and subside for a period. There seems to be a consensus developing for the need for mediation, and that's hopeful. — Becksguy (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good faith in the nomination of multiple, obviously notable articles with rationale who only points to minor problems solvable by regular editing processes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break[edit]

Comment I see a lot of comments advocating Keep with arguments such as "notable topic" or "lots of reliable sources" or even delving into the motivations of the nominator. I fear they haven't acutally read the rationale. This is not an deletion discussion about the topic, rather it's about the state of the article as it stands today and the type of material it includes. "State Terrorism" and "State Terrorism by the United States" (or pick your title du jour) are indeed notable topics. Unfortunately, this article doesn't include the topics of note. Rather it is a collection of synthesized views, original research, and unscholarly opinion. It doesn't present any of these topics in a neutral manner. Seeing the 100 or so people that commented on the AfD and the relatively small number of SPA editors that perpetually keep the article in this pathetic state, it's sad to see so little progress. In short, it is a notable topic with an awful article. Considering that it attempts to portray approximately 300 million Living People in such light, I would ask that readers rethink their keep in view of this article, not this topic. --DHeyward (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia works. Because articles are freely editable, the current version of the article doesn't matter any more than the article twenty revisions ago. I could go right now and change something in the article; if I did that, considering your rationale, would the AfD still be valid, considering that the revision that existed when it was brought up is no longer the current revision. Notability and verifiability are all that matter. If a subject can't be verified, then it doesn't have a place here. If a subject is verifiable but not notable, it doesn't have a place here. Deletion is an extreme last resort that is fallen back upon when there's no other way to fix something. Since there are other things that can be done to fix this article, deletion doesn't apply. See BEFORE and DEL for more information. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right up to the point where you claim that the article is about all 300 million Americans. If I were to tell you that the actions of the Rote Armee Fraktion were nothing short of state terrorism carried out with the full support of the DDR would I be wrong? Hell no. Indeed, claiming the opposite would be white washing. Does that label all citizens of the DDR as guilty? No it does not. This should be stubbed and reworked and the article put on probation asap but it shouldn't be deleted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit. I have tried. You mention "other things that can be done" but this article has had tags for a year without progress. Since it can't be made to meet Notability and verifiability it should be deleted and started over with stronger rules for contribution. Lot's of people have weighed in with their opinion every time this article comes up, but not many have tried to improve it since the last AfD. Deletion and stubbing are done all the time for articles that aren't being presented neutrally, with notable information or with verifiable information. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, the vast majority of your contributions to this article: 99%, have been deletions, as have been all of the other editors who don't want this article to exist. In over two years, I think Ultramarine is the only "deletionist" (person who wants this article deleted) who added a single reference. Two years, 50 or more "deletionist" editors, and only one editor who added a single reference. What does that say about the "deletionist" real intentions?

After years of editing this article I see there is no compromise with those who want to delete this article: either the article exists, which will cause friction, or it will cease to exist, which, based on your edit history on this article, I see is your single end goal.

You can use as many policy acronyms as you want to justify deleting this article, and lord knows every acronym policy has been trotted out as an excuse to delete this article, but the bottom line is the same: the "deletionist" will not be satisfied until this article ceases to exist.

A parallel argument which you have been deeply involved with has been deleting all of the alternative 9/11 articles. Morton Devonshire, someone you worked closely in tandem with for years, left the project because his work was done, which he described as deleting all alternative theory articles of 9/11. Now to focus solely on articles which paint America in a bad light. Same tactics, same acronyms, same lack of contribution to the article.

I wish Wikipedians would be more tolerant of alternative views. Inclusionist (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the "alternative views" encyclopedia. I am not tolerant of poorly sourced and unsourced material. Neither are you very tolerant of very well sourced criticism of Noam Chomsky or the conspiracy theorists. I have no opinion about the subject and am open to having an article that is well sourced and free from WP:SYN, WP:OR and the like. As for Morton, I am no more linked to him than you are to Rootology --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, your edit history shows that you want all alternative views of 9/11 and many views of the US removed from wikipedia.

I disagree with your characterization. This is were we differ: I have no problem with well sourced criticisms of conspiracy theories and Noam Chomsky. I feel like these sources belong on wikipedia. I have no made a coordinated attack on Criticism of Naom Chomsky in an attempt to get it deleted, because I think there are valid criticisms, even if I personally disagree with them.

I find it ironic that you label me a "time waster", when I am only attempting to keep well referenced content on wikipedia, whereas a large part of your edits is an attempt to delete these views.

Again, I think 99.9% of 9/11 alternative views are rubbish, but a significant portion of the worlds population subscribe to these views, making them relevant, so I tolerate their inclusion. I wish you spent as much time adding alternative counter views to these pages as you do deleting them.

I strongly doubt Rootology and Morton are really gone. Inclusionist (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To me, these delete votes and arguments look like a case of destroying the village to save it. Remember the Vietnam conflict? The real problem is that the article is a contentious battleground over content, and deleting it is not going to make that go away. If deleted, it will be recreated, in one form or another, with eventually the same issues. The solution is to lock the article, or place it on probation, and block contentious and edit waring editors, and then work on the individual section/events/claims one by one until consensus can be achieved. The official policy (not guideline or essay) on deletion, from WP:DP says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. WP:DP also says, as policy: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page [emphasis mine] which is key in this whole discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becksguy, this actually worked. Ingenious editors blocked this article for most of the summer. I think the solution is an Arbcom, which is way overdue.

Becksguy:

The solution is to lock the article, or place it on probation, and block contentious and edit waring editors, and then work on the individual section/events/claims one by one until consensus can be achieved.

It has been tried, please read the archives. Myself and others led a section by section negotiation, with a third party. It was blatantly ignored by both sides. Inclusionist (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SYN. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very convincing argument, and also untrue. Even if true, those are not valid reasons to delete, those are valid reasons to improve, per WP:DP, see above. — Becksguy (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policies I cited are both true and valid reasons to delete. It does not seem possible to improve the article as an alternative since the soapy synthesis is inherent in the putative topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why an objective article outlining allegations of a crime by an entity isn't possible? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible because neither the crimes nor the criminal are well-defined. For example, if I were to write upon this theme, I would be inclined to start at the beginning by detailing the way in which the revolutionary patriots of the nascent USA terrorised the tories who were loyal to the British crown. But conflating this with the matter of the Bay of Pigs or the treatment of the Red Indians or the A-bombing of Japan, etc must inevitably involve some synthesis since these matters are widely separated in time and space. Now, the prejudice which sees these matters as a continuum is worthy of an article and I expect that we have such articles at Anti-Americanism, Liberal guilt and the like. Such articles will cover the folk who make such allegations. The specific incidents are covered by specific articles. If there's a need for one or more articles to link such stuff together then they would be articles like History of the USA or Foreign policy of the USA in the 20th Century. Putting the word terrorism in the title is begging the question and so isn't NPOV.

Hold on. I'm sure I remember some rule for the distant past that CW and I are obliged to be on different sides of any given dispute. Something is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scary part is once you realize that you're on the same side, that there is still another side. --DHeyward (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems the nom and delete camp have an argument that boils down to something like "this article is on a notable subject but difficult to maintain." If we are going to delete this article, we might as well do a sweeping delete of most of our political and religious articles as well, although, this would seem like censorship, wouldn't it? If we can feature Islam then we have the ability to maintain and build this article. Also, if the subject is notable, then a recreation is inevitable, and the chances of it being any better than this one, which has undergone a lot of revision, are slim. aliasd·U·T 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alaisd, the Islam article is not focused on criticism of the faith. You're comparison isn't correct. This isn't, for example, a page on the US with a section on state terrorism - it's an article devoted to allegations of it. It would be like an article for "Allegations of human rights abuses carried out due to Islam" or something. John Smith's (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i jumped around a bit there. What I meant there was if we can feature an article that deals with a widely contentious topic, then we can most certainly maintain this one to a reasonable quality. aliasd·U·T 09:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually criticism is not what this article is about, per se. It's about representing a discussion of the terrorology literature of State Terrorism that involves the US. It discusses the various allegations of this type of State behavior within the global system of international relations. And it does so embracing all points of view, critical or not. Inclusion is based on notable expert opinion of authorities within this field of research--a growing field I might add. So, its your comparison is not correct.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really nice if we had an article "Allegations of human rights abuses carried out due to Islam." Unfortunately we only have "Islamic terrorism", indicating that the allegation that Islam preaches terror is a fact not an allegation.Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic capable of being built into a suitable article which may even be amongst Wikipedia's finest one day. My general notion in these things is not to delete what an article improvement drive could fix unproblematically. Orderinchaos 15:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is awful, biased, and unsalvagable. Delete with no recreation.Wtbe7560 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Awful", "biased", and "unsalvagable" - all of your claims are untrue. You need to prove why you are appyling these adjectives in this article. And also if any of the claim is true, that is not a reason for deletion, that is a reason for editing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"unsalvagable" meaning this article has been reworked, reworked again, over and over and over. What have we got? A big steaming pile of Wikipedia crap. If you can't see the problem with this article then you're part of said problem. Delete it already and move on. Wtbe7560 (talk)

because Wikipedia is the 'encyclopedia of only articles that are easy to write'. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:DE which is a official policy - "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page". Your suggestion to delete the article to solve problem is not constructive suggestion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unsalvagable? How is it biased? What makes it awful? Why are the things that make it awful and biased unsalvagable through the process of regular editing? These aren't constructive comments. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point Otolemur, which undermines the majority of the arguments here. Not that this will stop anyone, mind you. The underlying reason for the deletion has always been the same. Inclusionist (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors agree that it's a notable topic, the subject of numerous reliable sources, the target of much vandalism, and a POV magnet. Therefore, I vote Keep and cleanup, or Delete and start again, or Stubify—I honestly don't mind which. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, easy to say when you haven't dedicated years to maintaining (i.e. protecting the article from "deletionists") and adding new sections. Inclusionist (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons for AfD is to solicit comments from editors who aren't dedicated to the article in question. Lots of people feel strongly about this, and they do not agree. So, I'm sorry if what I said hurt your feelings; I was just trying to sum up how I see the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have followed this AfD with interest. I previously voiced my opinion that this should be deleted - if anything, I would change that to strong delete at this point (and include the other articles on "allegations of state supported terrorism" as I mentioned above). Wikipedia is not the place to base an article on allegations, regardless of how well sourced they may be. Doing so is unencyclopedic. The sources that support this article confuse the situation. I know this will sound like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we don't have articles titled "allegations that the US is a bad country," "allegations that Iran has bad food," "allegations that Brazil supports bad musicians." Each of these could be well-sourced, may be notable, and may be popular discussion topics. Why don't we have them on Wikipedia? Because these are all subjective - as is the term "state sponsored terrorism". Without a widely accepted, non-controversial definition of this term, it is impossible to create a neutral POV article on this topic. Each allegation of "state-supported terrorism" illustrated in these articles can be covered within the context of the main articles themselves - creating a separate article to deal with these allegations as a whole is pushing a POV and is essentially a WP:SOAP. This is why I think we need to delete this article as well as Allegations of state terrorism by Iran, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, and Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. BWH76 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the term "state sponsored terrorism" is not any more subjective than many terms used in legal/political/cultural arenas, or even here on WP. Terms like art, obscenity, encyclopedic, significant coverage, neutral are all subjective to some extent. Having an article in Wikipedia is not inherently POV, otherwise, there would need to be pairs of articles, one for each side of a subject (assuming that there are only two sides to each subject, often not true). Do we need articles entitled Allegations of not committing state terrorism by <nation> for balance? The word "Allegations" was restored to the title for increased NPOV and to conform to other similar articles. We make each article as NPOV as possible within the article, not across articles. From WP:NPOV: As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". — Becksguy (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Nominator's main justification is their perception that the article has been subverted by POV-pushers. But the deletion policies are clear on this. A perception that an article has a POV problem is not grounds for deletion. There is no topic that cannot be covered from a neutral point of view, if contributors make enough effort. I see an active talk page here. I see an article with a lot of references. If someone thinks the references aren't good references, then challenge the references on the talk page. If someone thinks the references aren't being characterized accurately or from a neutral point of view, than challenge that on the talk page. I couldn't help noticing that the there is no sign, in the last 1500 edits to the talk page, of the nominator making any effort to discuss their concerns prior to their nomination. Please, don't do that. Please make an effort to raise your concerns first on the article's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I can understand the frustrations many editors have had with this article, and I have them also. And I think that there are emotional involvements here, as this is a sensitive subject, as well as a politicized and controversial one. But to nominate an article for deletion because of content disputes is against policy, per WP:DP, in which it says: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Therefore the effect of this nomination is disruptive, especially following on seven AfDs in which the article was kept, and does not help the article. As I said before, to argue for deletion looks like a case of destroying the village to save it. No one disputes that the subject is notable, and there are loads of reliable sources for notability and verifiability, about 238 references when the article was much longer. If there are WP:POV issues, or any of the other issues raised in the nomination, which I don't see, then consensus edit them, per policy, rather than delete. The only serious issue I see is that it's a battleground with edit wars preventing the article from being stabilized and improved. — Becksguy (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - balance issues are pervasive and unavoidable, due to the pov nature of the article title. On its face, it violates NPOV, Notability and undue weight concerns.

As well, it attracts those who are unaware that state action and terrorism are significantly different; therefore the likelihood of uncited or unreliable text is exceptionally high, thus turning the article and article discussion into a battleground of WP:COATRACK ideology, and not actual facts.

User:Scepter is correct that this represents a WP:HOPELESS issue; the article is flawed from the very title. It should be deleted and stubbed with a more appropriate title so as to attract a less frothing-at-the-mouth, OWN-ish sort of editing. The article cannot - as proponents have insistently argued be "fixed", as the very title attracts pov warriors who simply refuse to see the paucity of neutral and reliable sources - after all, the article reflects their own pov, so how can it not be neutral?

The subject is notable; the approach is not, and is actually a clusterfuck from soup to nuts. Annihilate it, rename it and start over. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Interesting view. Are you able to provide supporting evidence for your assertion that "state action and terrorism are significantly different"? A whole lot of articles will have to be renamed or deleted if you can provide credible evidence, rather than this just being your own opinion. --John (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I sure can, though most of it I already noted in the NOR policy discussion page. To paraphrase that post, the difference is that:

states are bound by certain rules of war, whereas non-state actors (ie, terrorist organizations) refuse to be bound by such rules of war and codes of conduct. Such self-sanction (ie, moral justification), says Albert Bandura (in his book, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, as reprinted in Origins of Terrorism, ed. by Walter Reich) is what differentiates the terrorist from a state; the state has internal repercussions for the violation of these rules and codes of conduct, whereas the non-state actor does not..."Terrorists deliberately cloak themselves and their acts in military jargon, so as to lend themselves an air of legitimacy afforded state or wartime actions." (Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism).

Is that what you were looking for? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really clarify things for me. "states are bound by certain rules of war, whereas non-state actors (ie, terrorist organizations) refuse to be bound by such rules of war and codes of conduct" assumes that 'states' will always obey certain "rules of war" - and history teaches us that that assumption is faulty. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I was asked to provide citations to support the assertion that "state action and terrorism are significantly different", and I did, from verifiable, reliable and notable sources, which I have done. Your speculation as to how the you choose to dismiss or accept those terms is rather outside the purview of this AfD. For good or ill, your view on how recognized experts in the field have it all wrong cannot be used to rebut their citable statements. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daylights[edit]

Non-notable musical group - signed to a label, but has not released an album as of yet. Once they have released something on a major label, it may be a different story, but as of now.... Pastordavid (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They may be on a major label, but they have yet to release anything on that label. I'm not finding any reliable sources yet, either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to what others have stated, the band does not appear on the Epic website, casting more doubt on the article's claims. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, per the sources identified in this discussion which appear to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2XL (band)[edit]

Notability that is marginal at best, not clear if the minimum standards of WP:MUSIC are met or not. Pastordavid (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have a paragaraph or so at All Music Guide, but I'm not sure if that's enough -- other sources would be very tricky to find given the band's name. If the UK Singles Chart position can be verified, then maybe they would squeak through. But just in case, I've added the page on their album to this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you're not certain that the minimum standards of notability has been met, then you should tag the article with {{notability}} and not nominate something that at first glance seems quite notable enough to me. All Music Guide is as professional and as mainstream as a music website can possibly be. They do not review just any album that has been released and if they have provided a full length review of an album, then it's a pretty good bet that the artist behind that album is notable enough for an article on wikipedia. Yes, it is a stupid name for a group but a quick search on google reveals this, this, this and of course the AMG review. Seems notable enough per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC.
- Comment. The article has in fact been tagged with {{notability}} for almost a full year, with no evidence of notability added to the article. I brought the article to AfD because I was unsure - and some else has been unsure for 11 months - and I trust the consensus process of AfD to make a good decision one way or the other. What I saw in the article (and still see) is one album, with one unverified claim of a chart placement. Pastordavid (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided above establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A google search for 2XL "kitty kat" produces many videos and lyrics. Also, the song features E-40 who is a very prominant rapper.

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firestone and Ford tire controversy[edit]

NPOV dispute for eight months and "controversy" article = content fork Sceptre ^(talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event, with media attention. Maybe need rewriting for NPOV. Yopie 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Keep Notable issue with real-world ramifications, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable; had a great deal of media attention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Wikipedia can't write about controversy at all, well, we could always have Rambot (talk · contribs) create lists of tire inflation ratios or something. Seriously, this was wall-to-wall coverage for a few weeks and then long legal and other ramifications for months afterward. The sources are insufficient to really demonstrate this fact, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Massive notability via lots of news coverage and legal debate + lots of reliable sources + BEFORE and DEL stating that an article that can be improved through editing isn't a good candidate for deletion = Strong keep. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As per what User:Dance With The Devil wrote:

It should be noted that this is a frivolous nomination by a party on a crusade against controversial articles:

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy/archive2

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientology_controversies

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies/archive1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Trav (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wikify. Sometimes people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. This article has massive notability: many magazines, lots of coverage, every automobile site has this story in your archives. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akumetsu[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a notable manga. Artist, publisher, etc. are all red links, and despite multiple hits, I'm finding nothing that asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the publisher and the magazine of serialization are notable publications: Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese manga publishers is startlingly weak, with big gaping holes like this. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The magazine where it's published, Weekly Shonen Champion, has an article in Japanese (ja:週刊少年チャンピオン) and also in Chinese. And, as can be seen here, several manga with articles have been published in that magazine. I know this AFD is not about the magazine, but since it seemed to me that it was implied in the rationale of the nomination that the notability of the manga is related to the lack of an article for the magazine, I think the above is pertinent. Also, the publisher is not a red link, it's just not linked. Here is the article: Akita Shoten. Cattus ^talk 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 18 volume series published by the fourth largest manga publisher in Japan; that means it was a hit. Which means it is notable. I recall the use of political violence in the book creating a bit of controversy at the time; may be able to dig up an article on that. Doceirias (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not that it's hard to find, ja:アクメツ is the extensive Japanese Wikipedia article for the series, which ought to be minable for information. I've found evidence of there's a Taiwan edition, FWIW. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable release within a niche field. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Care to define 'niche field' for me? Protonk (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that it is a non-notable topic within an already not-that-major field (Anime/manga), and all-together it is too insignificant and unlikely to be extensively sourced. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I probably phrased that poorly. I would admit that this is probably not extensively sourced. However, anime/manga as a genre is about as widespread as a good number of other pursuits. I think calling it a niche field might unfairly diminish its apparent impact in the world. But I retract any implication that you were acting in any way apart from good faith. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely wrong about that! Anime and manga are some of the largest industries in Japan, and this series has garnered widespread attention there. That means it's worthy of our attention, even if you personally have never heard about it or don't care about it. It exists, it's successful, and people do in fact know what it is. As some other guy pointed out, the Japanese article is extensive and cites almost 20 sources. It is lazy to say an article is non-notable because we haven't gotten around to writing articles on the relevant publisher and so on. They do exist, and people do know about them - just not in the west. By the way, I'm all for keeping this article! 87.244.99.142 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT? The fact is, we are not on the Japanese Wikipedia, and the article isn't sourced. If you wish to source it, be my guest (WP:SOFIXIT). As it stands all these keep voters haven't found the time to source the article - I suspect because of the extremely minor impact it has had on the English speaking world and the unlikelihood of finding reliable sources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are clear that notability has no language barrier. If it's notable, it's notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything of the sort. There's a difference between notability and reliable sources. I only said the sources that the Jap Wikipedia seems to have are not present here, and no one has bothered to add them - which I suspect is because of the severely limited appeal. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the series has not been licensed in English (or outside of Asia, that I can tell -- there is at least Chinese and Korean editions, plus one in Malasia though I can't tell if it's an import of the Taiwan edition or something separate), sources supporting notability are likely to not be in English. So: keep, tag for notability, and remand to WikiProject Anime and Manga for cleanup. If nothing comes of it in a few months -- though the facts Doceirias notes do indicate it must be notable -- revist. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy G3 hoax. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Corbett[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. However, I am not entirely certain. EJF (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Yes, it's a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Peak oil. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peaknik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The term is a valid term, but it fails WP:N. According to WP:N, a topic will be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage means sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Although google search shows many ghits, there are not enough sources which describes this term in detail. No hint in google book search [23] and google news search [24]. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science. — Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Peak oil. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google of the term shows 13000 pages, showing that it is an existing cultural group. It seems to be an in-house term (though one editor claims it to be pejorative), and as such has not been picked up by the media. This in itself should not count against it, since the use and definition of the term is documented in the 13000 existing pages. I don't support merging with Peak oil as that is a very technical article and would not benefit from a cultural discussion. There are other terms that are related, such as Doomer and Cornucopian. Peaknik and Doomer were redirected to Hubbert peak theory at one point, and the information moved there, but then the information was removed from that article because that's another technical article.

Comment: WP:GOOGLE is not the way to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Don't just point at a policy. Explain what makes you think it's not notable. Also, see Wikipedia:Search engine test. NJGW (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No significant coverage in reliable source. What made you think the term notable? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is appropriate for retention, based upon the growing public interest in both Peak Oil and Survivalism. Although the term Peaknik is not widely used in the mainstream, is is very well known in Peak Oil circles, and to a lesser degree in Survivalist circles. The term Peaknik is now cropping up in the mainstream mediad. For example, see this recent New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html (On the second page of the web edition.)Trasel (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All your comments are original research. You fail to provide some reliable sources with significant coverage of this term. WP:N and WP:RS is the main issue here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator: I hope the closing administrator will read my rationale for the deletion. The term is used, no one denying it, but the term fails WP:N, the term has no significant coverage in some reliable sources. The "Keep" votes simply ignored WP:N and WP:RS issue. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, it could be merged with Peak oil. However nomination for deletion is not the way to discuss merging.Biophys (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you explain your rationale for the keep vote? The issue is with notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it should be merged with another article, unless expanded and better sourced. But you could simply label this article for merging and discuss. Nominating an article for deletion is not the way.Biophys (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it a repository of neologisms both the Peaknik and Doomer articles should be transwikied to Wikitionary and the pages redirected to the Peak Oil page, where if necessary a brief explanation of the term should be included there. this site offers a definition similar to whats in the peaknik article but it also says the term has been used to refer to people who were fans of Twin Peaks. disclosure I came to this discussion after been asked as to whether I thought this site was a reliable source, my conclusion is that it more like a Self published source Anyone can create a website ..., then claim to be an expert in a certain field. it then says caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. The discussion at User_talk:Gnangarra/Archive21#RS didnt ask for me to make any comment in this discussion. Gnan garra 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary and delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is just the definition of a word, along with a bunch of duplication of Peak oil content that we already have in the Peak oil article. We don't have reliable source material to write an actual article on people who believe in the peak oil theory. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per Gnangarra and Xyzzyplugh. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete Fails WP:WINAD. Razor flame 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7: no notability claimed. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savezombies[edit]

Either non-notable, a hoax or made up. EJF (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Snipe[edit]

Non-notable rapper/producer. Produced 1 non-notable track on a Lil Jon album. All his own albums appear to be mixtapes (his first—"Cash on Delivery"—returns 3 uninformative ghits so I can't be sure about that one). Artist name returns a very low ghit count (~2700) considering claims made in the article (which is wholly unreferenced); similar result for Ben Frank. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is yet another example of an overblown mixtape artist, fails WP:MUSIC and all that. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's got a couple claims here and there, but they're all followed by {{cn}} tags that are unlikely to be replaced with, you know, actual citations.{{cn}} His only appearances are on mixtapes, which are generally not notable. Not to mention that I really hate seeing {{infobox musical artist}} templates with improper information in the "background" field. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nobody other than the nominator has provided a reason for deletion, everybody's providing a pretty solid reason for keeping this article. Therefore, I think WP:SNOW clearly applies here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Friedman[edit]

This article was previously considered for deletion here.

Delete - In the previous AfD here, it was argued that this article needed time to grow or expand, that sources to establish notability needed time to be found, etc. The sources and measures of notability cited are sorely flawed - a Google search that brings up many unrelated hits, a Google news search that brings up local music performance news/reviews (WP:BAND and other guidelines and standard interpretations of policy don't give local "Performer X played downtown last night (and it was good)" enough sway to be substantial coverage), a biography that is a reviewed submission by him, listing him as faculty at a conservatory (failing WP:PROF), and a deadlink that use to get us to an all-inclusive trombonist database (no indication of notability there). The only point I won't address is one that needs no addressing: one participant in the previous AfD has made it very clear that he believes notability is "irrelevant" - that is his opinion, and may be something he uses in a keep rationale, but it is not consistent with our practices and merits no comment or response. Cheeser1 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google is finding quite a few online bios, news mentions, and compositions. I think notability is satisfied. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double check that - see previous AfD re: Google test. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking at the results here [25] and [26] here. It might have thrown false positives before, but I'm finding a lot now. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  All I'm seeing here is sheet music, instructional CDs, and his personal website. None of those are independent sources. --149.43.252.9 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jeremy McCracken. Can a link to the previous AFD(s) please be added to the top of this one, like we do with others? Thank you Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's right in first line of my rationale. I don't know the template, so I have added a line to the top - someone can add the template instead, if they know it. A Google test hardly qualifies for WP:BIO. Cite some of those would-be sources, because last time we Googled this one, it turned out to provide very little in the way of notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The very first Google News archive hit for "Jay Friedman"+trombone [27] shows blindingly obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good sources. Passes notability guidelines for WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really?
1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable ... - debatable, but only borderline nontrivial coverage, and only in sources of which many are not independent
2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. - nope
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. - nope
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. - nope
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). - nope
6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. - nope
7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. - nope
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. - nope
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. - nope
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) - nope
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. - nope
12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. - nope
Want to be more clear? Saying "WP:MUSIC" doesn't get you a free pass unless you demonstrate that the subject passes WP:MUSIC. And before anyone does it, don't refer to his participation in any large orchestra or other body of musicians. WP:MUSIC is very clear about the fact that members of groups do not inherit notability. The article here arguably doesn't even assert notability (a speedy criterion for deletion), and if there are multiple reliable independent sources that demonstrate notability... where's the beef? I don't see it in the article, or the current sources, and only in a single local news story (multiple reliable independent sources being required here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, my comment "good sources" meant that this artist passes WP:Music #1, and a musician needs only meet one of the criteria. I saw what I perceived to be multiple nontrivial reliable sources. But, in order to strengthen the reasoning that certainly a principal trombonist of a major symphony orchestra is certainly notable, I did a brief search and added additional sources - nontrivial - and did not include the many many concert mentions - and only included articles about the subject himself, save for one CD review in which he is mentioned. Secondly, the overwhelming reasoning for keep from the first nomination for deletion of this article were convincing. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't look like significant nontrivial coverage to me. Also, I addressed the previous AfD in my rationale - much of the "keep" was either vague reference to "is notable" or was "keep and expand" - which has not happened, and presumably will not, happen. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two of the articles specifically about this musician marked (fee required) look short at a glance, but both are 500+ words. I am not willing to pay the fee for the whole articles, but the fact remains that they exist, and establishes notability to me. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've taken part in many afds for classical musicians and singers and this one is about the most clearly notable example that I've seen. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's disturbing that Cheeser1 seems to want to require that the subject of the article pass notability criteria appropriate for popular, not classical, musicians, such as winning a Grammis or composing music for a TV show. It makes me wonder--does this editor really know anything about orchestras or about classical music? Is he aware that first-chair players in an major orchestra are often well known classical musicians in their community? Or that winning such a chair at 25 is very unusual? Probably not... In general terms: I don't think anyone should propose an article for deletion if they don't know the field of the article. Opus33 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepStrongly agree with this. I wouldn't normally post a concurrence like this without something significant to add but I think that the wall of text from cheeser might be interpreted as reason enough to close the debate. This guy is first chair of a section of a world class orchestra. That, in my book, is much more notable than winning a grammy (of which there are ~120 a year offered).Protonk (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with Opus33: I don't propose the deletion of articles about gastropods because I don't know anything about gastropods. No shame in that - but it's important not to waste other people's time. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Chicago Sun-Times article appears to establish notability solidly. — brighterorange (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC. Same as last time. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time, eh? Last time, there were a few speedy votes because the article, in that form, had no assertion of notability. Now it has a minimal assertion of notability supported by extremely small local newspaper snippets, personal auto-biographies, and musician/people databases/lists, most of which were sloppily added to the bottom of thhe article after this AfD started (god forbid any of you people comment before then, when I asked weeks ago about whether or not anyone intended to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards). He still only garners one significant mention in a major publication of any sort, and the fact that 2/3 of the inline citations are non-independent biographies of Friedman is still an issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Hawk[edit]

Non Notable Movie... no Ghits. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it possible this is written about a real person by a former partner? Dreamspy (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax, but certainly nn if real. That bastion of movie info IMDB has never heard of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Punkmorten (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of country coats of arms[edit]

Recent fork of Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms. This version of the "sovereign state" article is identical to this version of the "country" article, except for rewording the lead and the addition of the national emblem of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Prod was removed.[28] Gimmetrow 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I requested the same thing, but my request was removed without discussion. we have "sovereign states" for nations recognized internationally and "unrecognized states" for disputed nations. So there is simply no need. --SelfQ (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Your request was removed *with* discussion, on the discussion page for the article. As for reasons: Wikipedia typically goes with common usages, and not academic (but non-scientific) ones. Do we go back and change all events from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2000 and list them as "events of the 20th century"? No, we go with the common usage.

- Wikipedia consistency: Do we have a "list of sovereign states by length of coastline"? No. How about "list of sovereign states by number of active troops", or "list of sovereign states by Human Development Index", or "list of sovereign states by number of telephone lines in use"? Of course not.

- But we do have list of countries by length of coastline, list of countries by number of active troops, list of countries by Human Development Index, and list of countries by number of telephone lines in use, and all of those naturally include countries like Taiwan. Makes sense for the flag list and coat of arms list to use the Wikipedia convention, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.5 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: This article is a fork and currently appears to be created from scratch on 8 April without giving any credit to all the other editors who worked in this list since 2004. That's my concern. If you want to argue that the "sovereign states" list (with its editing history) should be merged with the "unrecognized" list, that's a different issue. Gimmetrow 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, let's rename and standardize the other article, and follow the country rules for the rest of wikipedia. Once we do that, delete this one. But don't leave it as is, where you can't find all the country flags or coats of arms in a single place. You shouldn't have to click through to get to the flag of Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skalskal (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to moving the "sovereign state" version here for consistency's sake; forking and moving are different animals, and moving preserves the editing information needed under the GFDL. Note also that this material is perfect for a gallery, and the sort of information that print encyclopedias routinely present as illustrated plates. No opinion on whether the Republic of Taiwan should be included or not, though I frankly would find its omission somewhat disconcerting after it's been called to my attention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK and GFDL violation. Then debate the naming (i.e. possible move) of the original article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms is also the subject of an AfD. It was nominated by User:Skalsal, the editor who created this fork and made the IP post above. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only if other version is changed ...or... Maintain two versions. Rationale for deleting if the other is changed: Should not have an island where the rules are different, the rest of wikipedia goes by "country", and there are many lists of information by country. Rationale for maintaining two versions: Maintaining two versions is okay for list of countries and list of sovereign states, why not for flag and coats of arms? The one unacceptable option: keep sovereign and delete country: creates internal inconsistency.Skalskal (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G12 clear copyright violation. User obviously did not understand Wikipedia:Move procedure or GFDL author history requirements. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and offer a bit of fish to the creator of the fork. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted R3 by NawlinWiki. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Four Of It[edit]

non-notable album of non-notable band/group - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band's a red link and seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Therefore, their album would fail as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this article seems to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. There are no citations on the entire page that cite anything that might be considered a reliable source, and criteria 3 specifies that an attempt to cite a reliable source is required to prevent speedy deletion. --Quintin3265 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Published works of notable and non-notable artists/writers, etc. do not fit into the WP:CSD crtieria. (Although I believe they should.) For now, AfD is the only procedural way to slough off nn material like this. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, please. Speedy delete categories for nn albums (including mixtapes) and nn books would be great! Get on that, would you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keepper consensus. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. - Unlike his victim (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Björn_Söderberg ) there is a clear consensus to keep in this case, and the subject is notable for more than just one incident. I would suggest some of the material in this article be moved/merged to a higher level overview article but there is less problem with doing BLP related harm to the perpetrator of a crime than to the victim. Therefore keep. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above was a double close, arrived at independently... consider this an endorsement of the close. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hampus Hellekant[edit]

I declined speedy WP:CSD#G10 because it seems like a pretty thoroughly sourced article. It has since been pointed out to me that "neo-nazi" might be a POV term, but since he's described that way in the New York Times article (citation #1), I thought I'd bring it here. See also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Björn_Söderberg
Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E Sceptre ^(talk) 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced for a stub! Notable criminal and post-conviction controversies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Comment - no basis given by nominator for deletion; article provisionally seems to be likely to meet all usual criteria for a biography. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really see the reasons for this nomination.--Berig (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E Not a noteworthy person.Koolkataid ^(talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding reason for nomination CSD:G10 is Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject. That certainly seems like grounds for nomination. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Disparaging the subject" seems to a be an odd concern. After all, the identities of convicted murderers (and other criminals) is public information under Scandinavian laws and I expect that to be the case in most other juristictions. Google has around 1,000 non-Wikipedia related hits for his name so his actions are hardly a secret. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SchmuckyTheCat. Violent crimes and in particular Nazi crimes is very unusual in Scandinavia. Please note that Koolkataid is likely a sock or single-purpose account. It has made no other edits except the "no" vote above. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major crime, wide coverage, NPOV per NYT quote. Unless of course we decide we only want to cover living people about whom there are favorable things to say. DGG (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything stated in the article is true and confirmed. Why even discuss this matter?!--David Igra (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These pages serve the purpose of INFORMING the public of his deeds. If his deeds are disparaging, as you say, to him, well then, he should've thought about that BEFORE murdering an innocent man. If every murderer's and every other person's feelings were to be cared for in the fashion you advocate, this Wikipedia project would contain little more than a few megabytes of information. I say with a strong voice: KEEP this article as is!!! I care a thousand times more for his victims than him, the fact that he's out after such a heinous crime is a crime itself!--Karl Svensson (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason mentioned why this should be deleted. /Slarre (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason mentioned in the nom why this should be deleted! BLP1E is not applicable here because he is now famous from the expulsion from medical school as well (and the question whether murderers should be allowed into med. school). Ulner (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why remove if it is the truth? He is murderer.--Salvatore46 (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP is not an issue as the article is well-sourced and everything in it is - as far as I can see - verifiable. All the Swedish sources are not excellent (Expressen and Aftonbladet are both tabloids, Dagens Nyheter however is more reputable) but there is no question but that this is a notable person. This was a very high-profile murder case in Sweden and this article is not about disparaging the subject but documenting the case. Note that press ethics practices concerning publicizing people's names are stricter in Sweden than in some other countries, which means that names of people who are charged but not convicted of murder are generally not publicized; Hellekant's name is not in the Dagens Nyheter article because although it was well after he was convicted of the killing, he hadn't committed a crime in connection with the medical school issue. --Bonadea (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --John (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes on India[edit]

Most of the article is a direct copy from Wikiquote - India. I believe the article fails WP:NOT#MIRROR, described as mere collections of public domain or other source material. SWik78 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not Wikiquote.--Beloved Freak 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate of info already found at Wikiquote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki, to wikiquote. No possibility of an article. Earthdirt (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteify into the etherspace. 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - There is not a clear consensus to keep. To the keep points: Schmucky, et al. one incident does not a biography make, the murder may have been notable, but the person is not, as addressed by Sceptre in the nomination. However, even the murder may be more properly placed in a larger context article, just as the BBC (thanks, Valentinian, for the pointer, good to see you around!) did. They mentioned the murder in passing while writing about the larger theme of right wing extremist activity in Sweden. To fully honor the spirit of BLP this is what we should do as well, find the right larger context article. Absent a clear consensus to keep, non notable or marginally notable BLP articles should be deleted. Delete without prejudice to merging to a larger context article. Redirects could be made from "BS" and "Murder of BS" to the correct section of that larger context article, if desired Contact me for the deleted materials if needed. ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Söderberg[edit]

Wikipedia is not for biographies about people notable for one minor event. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - being a murder victim does not make him necessarily notable. ~~Does not pass notability guidelines.~~--Beloved Freak 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the arguments below (SchmuckyTheCat, Soman etc) I would support a move to Murder of Björn Söderberg or something similar. I still don't think that the victim warrants a separate article.--Beloved Freak 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though perhaps an unfortunate victim of a newsworthy crime, the article does not indicate that the subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. PCock (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hålla (keep). Sweden is not the United States where murders in major cities are everyday news items. This was a particularly memorable crime because of the extremist politics surrounding it on an issue (xenophobia) that mainstream Swedish politics, and the mindset of the populace, have not come to terms with. It may be that the crime is more the subject of the article than the victim, but in that case all that will happen is the article is renamed to "Murder of Björn Söderberg" SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep but BLP1E-ize - the incident is more the appropriate focus, rather than a biography of the victim. Keep but rename or direct to the crime, per SchmuckyTheCat. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly doubt that this article would be posted here if the article was about an American counterpart in a similar fate.--Berig (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable subject. // Liftarn (talk)
Delete being murdered (even if it is in Sweden) does not automatically confer notability. X Marx The Spot (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect to Murder of Björn Söderberg. Obviously BLP does not apply to a murder victim; nevertheless we should focus the article subject on what is notable, i.e. the murder. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Politically motivated murders are notable (unless they are a common occurrence in the relevant country/area, which is far from the case here). Even the BBC picked up the story,[29]. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly move to Murder of Björn Söderberg. The murder has a highly notable case in Sweden, it was followed by some of the largest public manifestations in modern Swedish history, and foundation has been instituted in the name of Söderberg. --Soman (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am troubled the nominator seems to make a hobby out of deleting other people's contributions. Trav (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable in Sweden. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect. There are plenty of murders in Sweden that are not notable; this is not one of those. The murder was labelled as a political action (reportedly, Söderberg had told the press about a right-wing extremist being a local union boss, and both murderers were outspoken about their neo-Nazi sympathies). Söderberg's murder was followed by large anti-fascist demonstrations, which also were mentioned in international press [30]. However, the notability is connected to the murder rather than the person, so moving the article to Murder of Björn Söderberg would make sense. And adding more sources, which is not difficult. --Bonadea (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Thomas[edit]

"How to get a million dollars worth of Free PR"? Have someone post an article about you on Wikipedia, apparently. No indepedent sources are given. There are a number of assertions of notability, and a number of hits on Google, but I was unable to find truly independent, neutral biographical coverage about this person. Maybe someone else can - but otherwise I don't see how an NPOV biography could be written. SPA creation, tagged with notability concerns since May 2007. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a unverifiable self-promotional article on a non-notable author. While she makes a number of claims that would be notable if true, I can't find sourcing for them either. (And as the nom mentions, the fact that she markets a book telling you how to get free PR by exploting the internet doesn't inspire trust). Bfigura ^(talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment, this is obviously an author about whom we may not know a lot but she has 361 hits on google news archive [31], and has been around for decades. A little could be written simply chronicling her writing career/the books she's written, and probably a bit of critical reception could be found for each one. We need only write about her writing- that after all is what she's notable for, as with most writers that's what we need to write about. Merkin's mum 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Self-advert spam from an SPA. Qworty (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000s icons[edit]

Delete. I think it's pretty obivous the title is POVs, poor tone, this can never be salvaged. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; an opinion piece, I don't see how this could be rewritten in a neutral, well-sourced fashion. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just who decides who or what are icons and who or what isn't? DarkAudit (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable, helpful, interesting, and encyclopedic list, but it needs references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. Who decided that these particular entities were icons over others that were just as, if not more, deserving? By what definition is something or someone an "icon"? Who decided what the "best" is? This is just an indiscriminate list of links, really. DarkAudit (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it sounds like an "it's notable, helpful, interesting, and encyclopedic" argument. As to the questions, that just needs referencing per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT and AfD not being clean up. The article is undeniably discrmininate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I fixed it, there'd be almost nothing left. What is listed as "best" isn't necessarily what I'd include as "best". It would be POV fighting POV. There's no sources to say who, if anyone, came up with this list. Without first determining who made this list, it's just a list of links. Even if the list was made by a reliable and verifiable source, the article would need to be moved to "(Source)'s list of 2000s icons". It is not the place or the mission of Wikipedia editors to unilaterally decide who or what is or isn't an "icon". That is what appears to be the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not opposed to moving/retitling the article and again, the article does serve a valid purpose. Per our first pillar, we're also an almanac and almanacs have such lists. The article has potential. We just need to find some sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have messaged the primary contributor to the "best" list requesting further explanation. Other revisions to the list are from IP editors with no rhyme or reason, especially the Chuck Norris edit just prior to the AfD nom. DarkAudit (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And the reply was there really were no sources. "added things that was obviously quite true" is definitely POV. Obvious to one may not be as obvious to another. DarkAudit (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DarkAudit. "THE BEST OF THE BEST: Chuck Norris"? Come on. That's encyclopedic? Editing down POV and fancruft would leave pretty much nothing. freshacconcispeaktome 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the fact that the identification of something as a "2000s icon" is highly subjective, there's also a massive cultural bias in this list. Besides a single nod to "the West's opposition with Islamic extremism and the industrialization of Asia", basically everything listed is specific to English-speaking Western countries, to America, or even to middle-upper-class white America. A sourced, comprehensive, culturally neutral rewrite might be acceptable, but it'd effectively have to be from scratch. Moreover, User:Tigerghost notes on the talk page that there are already a number of more specific articles in place, such as 2000s in film. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remember the first decade of the 21st century? Ask me in about 20 years. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem inherent with "era in topic" articles, is that they are best viewed from a distance, with time for professional researchers and scholars to study, analyse, and publish reliable material on the subject. As we are still well within the 2000s, we lack the perspective necessary to make this article neutral, unbiased, externally verifiable, and relaibly sourced., and will continue to do so until twenty or thirty years have passed. -- saberwyn 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsalvageably (and necessarily) incomplete article full of POV and lacking any form of balance. Disregarding the traditional arguments by those who seem wedded to the idea of such lists, there's not a reason to keep it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 2000s have better subpages that better sum up the information that is already currently in this article (e.g... 2000s in video gaming, 2000s in film, etc...). (Tigerghost (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
DESTROY. POV essay. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I think DarkAudit summed it up well. Is this something we could right about? Maybe in another century. --Haemo (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand Le Grand Roi's point, but I just don't think this is a feasible list to maintain. "Icons" in this decade are different things for different people (and for different reliable sources) and you could list just about everything made in the decade, if you could find a source for it (and in most cases you could). And thus, it'd become an indiscriminate list. IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there's any way for this to become an objective and sourced list. — brighterorange (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Exercising is Great, Right?[edit]

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and WP:OR. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands this just isn't an encyclopaedia article, relevent content is given an encyclopaedic treatment in various existing articles (such as Physical exercise, Muscle, Muscle memory) and I do not think that there is much to be retrieved from this one. Guest9999 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal essay, not an article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially it violates WP:OR. Deli nk (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing worth merging into existing articles.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be trying to sell any product or service. DarkAudit (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to me to be original reasearch dont think it's an advetisement but does read like a pamphlet you would get with some kind of exercise machine or gimic.BigDunc (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Personal essay/pamphlet/whatever, unencyclopedic tone, a little lacking in context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy/whatever delete, as this is probably a copyvio. It sounds like someone copied this verbatim from a textbook or pamphlet. --Quintin3265 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a definite possibility, but we can't assume that unless the source can be located. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond The Groove[edit]

Nonnotable local radio program; no sources cited to show notability. Creator removed prod tag without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Port Philip city site here does not list the station, but there is a web site for the station here. It is a community radio station, not a commercial station. That diminishes the notability of any program airing on such a station. DarkAudit (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, unreferenced, and notability is unlikely. That said, slapping on a prod tag just four minutes after the article was created without any intervening unref or wikify tags seems over the top. Surely the originating editor should be given a day or two to get the article up and running before this sort of nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Rtphokie (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per Wikipedia:SNOW. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher James Manners[edit]

May well be a hoax. Google turns up nothing whatsoever on this individual. A person of this age with such monumental talent should garner a lot of Googles. It's been suggested that I put this up for a community vote; mine is delete as a hoax. PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - nothing on Google, Kartoo or Yahoo; pretty obviously a hoax/vanity insert. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the rationale on the talk page. That sums it up pretty well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a hoax [32] SunCreator (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? - all that links shows is that there's an organist (not pianist) named Chris Manners. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to establish notability. SunCreator (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability, no useful sources found for notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably not a hoax, but on the article's talk page it is an admitted promotional page for the pianist. Delete for lack of verifiability and spam. If the boy gets some notice in major newspapers/magazines, a new article can be created. -- Kesh (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a hoax per SunCreator, but doesn't pass notability guidelines or verifiabilty policy. --BelovedFreak 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- see my note above - SunCreator has found a false positive, I believe. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). SWik78 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not willing to call it a hoax, but am willing to say non-notable. Either way, I did look at a list of past Eisteddfod winners and he isn't on any of the lists of awards that the lead paragraph says he is. Staeiou (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable possible hoax. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like WP:SNOW might apply here. Anyone disagree? SWik78 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I sure don't. User's first edit out of the box is totally unverifiable, the comment on the talk page is almost laughable and without any proof this kid even exists, I say wrap it up, nothing more to see here, move along. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete, non-notable vanity page. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Previous issues not resolved. Notability not established. Absent a clear consensus to keep, non notable or marginally notable BLP articles should be deleted. Therefore delete. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Ello[edit]

This musician bio, evidently created by its subject, underwent a flurry of speedy nominations but was saved from speedy by marginal claims of importance. It was tagged for notability and sourcing concerns in October, concerns which have gone unaddressed. This individual does not seem to meet the criteria set out at WP:MUSIC. I’ve looked through each of the 29 distinct hits I got for Markus Ello and found no RS (one that looked like it, to the Times Daily, turned out to be a Wikipedia mirror, here). There is no AMG listing for this individual under Markus Ello or Mark Casello. There is no listing for the band “Your Neighbors”, of which he was evidently a former member. There’s no indication that any of the albums listed was released on a notable label. COI tags were removed from the article by what seems to have been a SPA, here. I've made a good faith effort to locate reliable sourcing to verify notability and failed. Unless someone else is more successful, I believe this should be deleted. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:BAND. Way too many red links in this for my comfort. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on google for the artist's solo albums and the record label turned up nothing except for wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, but I'll be happy to userfy if someone asks. - Philippe 19:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's Miranda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Luke's Miranda

Nothing here is notable. It is just advertising for a minor suburban church. Grahame (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity page. JJL (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of RS coverage required per WP:ORG and ghits fail to establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another unremarkable suburban church. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability requirements. Dgf32 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to explain why this church is notable. —Moondyne click! 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing moderator - please merge this to the local suburb area following WP:LOCAL, even if the outcome is to delete. At least a couple of lines (and the picture) would be notable for the Miranda, New South Wales page even though a separate article would not be. JRG (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't need to be done as a merge as such. If there's anything worthwhile, then it can just be added to the Miranda article, either now or later. There's no need to keep this article around for that. -- Mark Chovain 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would ensure that the content is available to use - unlike a delete, where I could no longer access it. JRG (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge? The history section possibly, but it is uncited. —Moondyne click! 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably if someone did some research (and that involves more than just looking at Google hits) there would be plenty of information there to merge in the history section - most suburban churches in Sydney that are reasonably old have several sources written about them - you just need to look. Unfortunately for most Wikipedia editors it's far more convenient to just write "delete" without thinking about it. I don't have time to do this at this stage, but in my opinion it's better to have the information sitting around for when we can use it rather than have to start from scratch altogether. JRG (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can request it to be userfied to have it available to work on later if you wish -- but I'm with Moondyne on this one, there isn't anything worth merging since adding uncited material to Miranda, New South Wales about a non-notable church will likely have the information deleted from there. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only not notable in your opinion because you can't be bothered doing any research. JRG (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guce[edit]

Non-notable rapper from non-notable group (whose article was deleted). Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here is one article from the East Bay Express. That's not enough, but perhaps there is more... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm rather surprised that an artist with that many albums released can have so few google hits when I search for some of those albums. Since I was not able to find multiple non-trivial mention, it's a delete vote from me. --Bardin (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Star Lounge[edit]

Non-notable online casino. No assertion of notability. No evidence of coverage in reliable, verifiable, independent coverage per WP:RS. Google search returned a mix of press releases and hits for an unrelated Golden Star Lounge in Ottawa. No hits on Google News at all. DarkAudit (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reasons outlined in the nomination, this non-notable subject does not merit its own article here. WilliamH (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Online businesses need a fairly strong showing of notability at the outset to support articles. This has no such showing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible Unearthed[edit]

This article is essentially a POV fork. It uses the form of a book summary to present a lot of information in a non-neutral way. StAnselm (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So is the basis for deletion deviation from neutral point of view? Because I'm not seeing it. The article needs some work, but from what I can tell it seems to accurately relate what the book itself argues. Now the book would fail NPOV by a mile, but of course it is under no compulsion to be even the slightest bit neutral. This stuff is somewhat out of the mainstream for biblical scholarship, but hardly novel. Xymmax (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is this a POV fork of? It appears to be an article about a book. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AFD is essentially about the version of the article. We could take a look at this version, which constitutes its last structure prior to a substantial rewrite last year by PiCo. I don't think that is needed either, but thought it worthy to point out. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The book is notable, and while the article is not quite top-notch, there is no reason to delete this. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amazon.com lists it as Best of 2001 and has a review by Publishers Weekly. This seems to indicate more than enough notabilty. If there are POV problems, that can be addressed without deletion. Deli nk (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also reviewed in the New York Times [33] POV is an editing issue, not an AfD issue.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book is notable but the article would be enhanced with any significant published criticism.GoldenMeadows (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speaking of forks, I could really use one right now for this salad. We just ran out of plastic forks today. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much more notable than a lot of books that have articles on Wikipedia. Needs more real world context, but certainly not a reasonable candidate for deletion. In this case, I'd argue it is mainstream but the 'mainstream' is divided on the issues it covers.Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as the content of this article is drawn directly from the book itself, but there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. At best, the content of this article is a synthesis formed from the primary source, but without secondary sources, it can be classed as original research written from an in universe perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling in universe perspective on an article about a notable, distinctly non-fiction book? Odd.Shemeska (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit with a chainsaw. A significant chunk of this article needs to be cut, but if I'm reading this right it was the subject of a History Channel documentary. [34] As others have said, the POV problems, in-universe material and so forth are issues that aren't suitable reasons for deleting it, as it seems to be sufficiently notable. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article can be improved with a bit of sourcing and editing. Web Warlock (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here is the NYTimes review for anyone that want's it. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/finkelstein-bible.html Web Warlock (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decent article on a notable non-fiction book. The content summary could be trimmed down, and these additional sources should be added, but there's no reasonable reason for deletion. Of course the content is liable to be inflammatory to some people on ideological grounds I suppose, and I'm sure that sources can be found on that as well.Shemeska (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others. No valid deletion reason given. Rray (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No reason to delete; per DEL and BEFORE, if something can be fixed by editing, AfD isn't where you take it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as insalvageable. This article isn't about the book, this article is the book. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is this version, for example, that the article could be reverted to. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep, if reverted to that version or similar one. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book seems to be notable. Too much space in the article is given to retelling what the book says, as others have mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - Likely vanity page. No evidence of notability. Absent a clear consensus to keep, non notable or marginally notable BLP articles should be deleted. Therefore delete. (the barest bits of bio could be added to his father's bio if desired, if it had such a section) ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnaby Wynter[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No evidence of coverage in third party reliable sources, and notability is not inherited. Contested PROD. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:MUSIC X Marx The Spot (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Judging by the article and the talk page comments, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a vanity page.--Drat (Talk) 11:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN total vanity article unsourced and unreferenced Dreamspy (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bardin (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the criteria in WP:MUSIC are clear and the authors have not explained how any of them is met Mooncow (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Skyline High School (Oakland, California). Stifle (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OUSD Police (Skyline High)[edit]

wholly unsourced article failing WP:ORG, I'd normally consider merging with Skyline High School (Oakland, California) but there's a lack of specific secondary coverage about the organization and less than 20 Ghits total [35] (mostly memorials, job openings, directories) – Zedla (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skyline High School (Oakland, California). Not enough useful, referenced content to merge--maybe a sentence in the high-school article? Darkspots (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a paragraph on the same matter at Skyline High School (Oakland, California)#Campus safety and security and I'm prone to cutting that down due to the lack of sources. The nom'd article title by itself wouldn't be very useful as a redirect. – Zedla (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not a likely search term, but a useful one nonetheless... just in case. Article in question is already duplicated in target article. B.Wind (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/Nomination Withdrawn --JForget 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Mundi[edit]

Nominating this article for deletion on behalf of User:Orangemike. He mistakenly proded it, but did not notice it was proded previously. Hence it is a candidate for AfD. The article fails to establish notability which I did not understand previously. See [36]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable website with no mention of substance anywhere on the Web or elsewhere. The "sources" include one-paragraph mentions and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears not to meet WP:WEB criteria: sources appear to either mention it only in passing, or as part of a web directory. Alexa rank of 229,337, and falling. -- Arthur Frayn (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources prove the site exists, not that it's in any way notable. The refs included in the article appear to be the sum total of all available TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are details specifically about this site in The Age as referenced in the article, and it's also been addressed directly in the LA Times. --Explodicle (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As The Age and LA Times is reliable independent sources and gives significant coverage to the topic. Taemyr (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article in The Age is typical of newspaper "Websites about (insert topic here)" articles, and are covered under the "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site" clause of articles that do not meet WP:WEB. DarkAudit (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It garnered enough notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in reliabel sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, and has been given coverage in known news sources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has received independent coverage in (not 2 but) 4 reliable sources. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the references provided. I agree the article in its present form establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim urdu names u[edit]

Could become useful as part of a List of Urdu names, but there's nothing other than those beginning with U, which can't really stand alone. ~~Not itching to delete, but may go that way.~~ Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having found this previous AFD of several related articles, I'll go with delete. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup delete as per Jonathan Oldenbuck. X Marx The Spot (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Non-dropframe (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, then delete I looked at the debate that Oldnebuck cited on the other articles, and the final decision on that was "The result was delete. Will give a day or two to transwiki." Since it's determined that this information can be transwikied to Wiktionary, this should be treated accordingly. Anyone know how to "transwiki"? I'd do it if I knew how. Mandsford (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yahel Guhan 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Avalon (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this previous AFD of several related articles. And this one seems non-notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and redirect to Camp Sovereignty. Mattinbgn\^talk 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black GST[edit]

Black GST (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Seems to be a barely notable fringe organisation which existed briefly in 2006. The article fails to provide any secondary sources which could be used for verification. I would have expected to find some, but no newspaper articles of note were found. — Moondyne click! 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne click! 10:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Redirect There is notability with the protest that they organised (Camp Sovereignty) [37] but I don't see notability for the group itself outside the context of that event --Melburnian (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. As their claim to fame was apparently essentially that event, change to a redirect may be in order. —Moondyne click! 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely --Melburnian (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep/Nomination withdrawn. Would have been WP:SNOW keep, anyways. Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thule Society[edit]

When I came across this, I was at a loss to decide which criteria to use. It is astounding to me that this can have survived so many years. It fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE and so for all we can tell is full of copyvios. The big edit of 2005-01-04 looks like a massive copy-paste by a now-untraceable AOL IP user. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, AFD is not for cleanup. Did you see the Literature section in the article? This needs a {{citations missing}} or {{refimprove}} tag, not deletion. I see lots of coverage on Google News [38], Google Book [39], and Google Scholar [40]. --Pixelface (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above. --Carnildo (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Withdrawn-see below, it was tagged for refimprove last May with no action! There's no indication any of the content can be cited to the entries in Literature LeadSongDog (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is notable, and, as the German version shows, there is extensive literature available. Cleanup, don't delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the (in German) version actually has nine cites in thirty sentences. I couldn't comment on their quality, as they're in German, but it certainly is not anything like quantitatively sufficient for a controversial article. The fact that since 2002 nobody has bothered to clean up this article is strongly suggestive that it doesn't belong in article space.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why haven't you cleaned it up yet? --Pixelface (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And here is a rough Google translation of the German article if you're interested. --Pixelface (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - badly needs cleanup, ideally by a German-speaking editor (sadly, although I am a Milwaukeean, I'm not that editor; but no way on earth it's a delete. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's just untrue that there's been no cleanup. I corrected several blocks of text myself last year, and added eight Harvard-style inline citations to entries in the Literature section. I know that a good deal more could easily be sourced to the authoritative Goodrick-Clarke. The big 2005 edit was mostly sheer nonsense which has been worked out of the current text. No reason whatever to justify an AfD. Gnostrat (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As already said above, afds are not for cleanup. And also: Whereas there has been no work on the article itself, I have added a lot of (sourced!) material on the Thule society to the article Nazi occultism. Zara1709 (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. When I came across this afd, I was at a loss at who may had proposed such a thing. The article is notable even though the proposer Nazifobia. The article at no point is pro-Nazi and clearly states that the organization may haven been diverted from its original objectives due to Nazi politics. The Thule Society backgrounds compels with occult secret societies history and is is congruent with some radical Nazi leaders behavior and thinking at the time (think Heinrich Himmler). I do agree that the article does not meet wikipedia standars, but as many people have stated afd are not for cleanup. --Legion fi (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - The above is a complete nonsequitur. What on earth is Nazifobia? Where did I say anything about Notability? I said it fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE and it still does. LeadSongDog (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to policy-lecture, but which of the reasons for deletion do you think justify this deletion request? And why does WP:ATD (point 1) not apply? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The most obvious is Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed. I've gone through to mark citations needed. This should illustrate just how far gone it is.LeadSongDog (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But that is obviously wrong. There are reliable sources. They are not (yet, I hope) properly used in the article, but the existence of them is not even under discussion - or at least that is my impression. Indeed, there are several good sources listed in the literature section of the current article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How do we know they are the sources if they are not cited? Look through the edit history to see how much of the article predates the addition of those "Literature" entries. Still, if some people want to take on the task of fixing it, I'm prepared to withdraw the AfD.LeadSongDog (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The requirement is not for the current article to be good, but for the topic to have reliable sources. It has. There is not doubt about it. What remains is to improve the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Does "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." strike a familiar note? You can find it at WP:V. That doesn't mean just listing some possible sources, it means citing the RS upon which each of the assertions in the article is made.LeadSongDog (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is irrelevant. The fact that not all statements are sourced is grounds for improvement. What is your case for deletion? "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed", well please note the "all attempts". Every source in the Literature section is cited in the text, some with multiple page references, so clearly "all attempts" have not failed. Would you mind explaining how you arrived at your decision to AfD this article when you admit you hadn't even read it? Sorry, I forgot: you went for AfD after failing to have it deleted as six years of Nazi-promoting spam. Gnostrat (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course I tried speedy first. I thought and still think it should be trashed as soon as possible. Perhaps my use of the English idiom "even without looking at" was too subtle. It does not mean I didn't read it, rather that the argument stands irrespective of considering the content of the article. In fact, I've not only read the article, I've read many versions of it through the edit history back to 2002, hence the "six years" reference. What I've not found is any real sign of anyone stepping up to fix it. Perhaps one of you would like to show some repair effort on the article. My offer to withdraw still stands. I took the trouble to mark all the uncited assertions and was accused by Carnildo of making a wp:point for the trouble. Fine, I'll let [the revert] stand. It's there for your use if you like. But please acknowledge that the vast majority of what is stated in the article is NOT referenced whether or not it hypothetically could be. Having sources for a half dozen assertions doesn't come remotely close to enabling the reader to WP:V everything in the article. That's why a six-year-old article is still Start class despite having structure and images. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The question is whether the Thule Society is a viable topic for Wikipedia. Many articles are in poor shape for years. The Human skeleton article had no citations for over 4 1/2 years[41]. Please read WP:NOEFFORT and then consider "stepping up" yourself. --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that was worth refreshing my memory on. No, I will not be the first one stepping up to fix an article that I've already argued is in all probability beyond repair and of little intrinsic value. However, I will withdraw (for now) the AfD in the spirit of building WP:CONCENSUS and I encourage all those above to take the opportunity to prove me wrong. I'll keep a watch on it, and if someone finds a way to instill some value in the article, I'll eat my words and contribute.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "this looks like a six year experiment in unreferenced free speech for Nazis". You put that last sentence in a html comment in the Thule Society article. Only someone with strong feelings agaist (close to fobia) Nazism could consider that the article is a free speech for Nazis. I'm sorry if the world Nazifobia wasn't the correct one to use, but it is clear that you are nominating this article for AfD because you can't understand that someone who isn't a Nazi may be interested in it. I repeat myself, I agree that the article is in a bad shape, but that is no reason to delete it. I will try to heavily search for reliable sources, add them if I can, or renominate it for AfD. --Legion fi (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PureTnA[edit]

Contested prod. Concern was: "Fails WP:WEB criteria; no independent sources to establish notability." I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources to indicate this site's notability. Suggest deletion per WP:WEB. Muchness (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete cannot find anything that meets WP:web. I will add that I cannot view the site due to internet restrictions, but Google searches (including PreTnA AND award) have come up with nothing. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as advertising/spam Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not blatant advertising, but the article fails WP:WEB. PeterSymonds | talk 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what rock you live under, but PureTnA is known far and wide as a torrent mecca. If Time Magazine doesn't feature porn on it's cover, that doesn't make the site insignificant. At the very least, you need broad opinion before deleting something. Next someone will claim Jenna Haze isn't a celebrity because she's not on Radio Disney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.144.236.133 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 April 2008
delete - not relevant, somewhat advertising --Mass147 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Mears[edit]

Non-notable person, or no defense of notability. BananaFiend (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non-notable (A7), even nonsense (G1) or just flat out vandalism (G3). X Marx The Spot (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any speedy criteria (article asserts notability; says he was a cricket player in a championship), but looking online found nothing to say there was a Jacob Mears on the team, making me think it's a hoax. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Googling reveals nothing of notability, no news hits, nothing warranting his own article, and the only thing that comes up other than the WP article is a social networking profile - most likely the article is nothing other than a teenager singing his own song and it should be removed. WilliamH (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero tapping[edit]

Isn't an encyclopedic article as much as it is a "how-to" article on a particular strategy in the Guitar Hero games, which would contradict WP:GAMEGUIDE. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination, WP:GAMEGUIDE. If it's not original research, it probably can be mentioned in the gameplay section of the Guitar Hero article. --Minimaki (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Falls into WP:NOT#HOWTO territory - if the material that falls into that category was to be removed, there would be virtually no article left. -- JediLofty ^{User:JediLofty ¦ Talk} 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. DarkAudit (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable trick someone thought up themselves. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DarkAudit. JuJube (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQS Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a good example of the kind of thing that really is a game guide and should be deleted. — brighterorange (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also see WP:NFT. If, after deleting, someone wants the content of this page to transwiki to a site with a compatible license, they can feel free to contact me. This should be eligible for WP:SNOW by now... Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Not the "how to" (which is 90% of the article) but the basic concept. I assume to Guitar Hero. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there's nothing to merge, really. The Guitar Hero (series) article already says "In addition, the games support virtual implementations of "hammer-ons" and "pull-offs", guitar-playing techniques that are used to successfully play a fast series of notes by only changing the fingering on the fret buttons without having to strum each note." which is all that needs to be said on the subject, as far as I can see. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete I should have checked out the merge target first. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect. I'll create the redirect, and leave the merging to those who suggested it. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Parched Sea[edit]

This article does not provide any content, context, analysis or reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Gavin Collins (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drown The "article" is simply a load of sections and subsections, but if you remove all the headers, you've got only 3 or 4 sentences, none of which are sourced or prove notability. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms novels; agreed, it's certainly not much of an article at this point. BOZ (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. Article has remained virtually untouched for over a year and a half. PeterSymonds | talk 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - not enough content to justify keeping at this point. Should sources be located it can always be recreated. McJeff (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of Forgotten Realms novels. Editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. No bias against re-creation should the series be completed, and notability be established with reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Knights of Myth Drannor Trilogy[edit]

An article about a trilogy of books, of which there are only two. This article has no content, context, analysis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since I can see no notability of the unfinished trilogy. Only two books have been published yet. The published books have an amazon sales rank between 8,000 and 22,000 (as of today). While it may be discussed that the books themselves are sufficiently notable, I don't think an unfinished trilogy is. --Abrech (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms novels. BOZ (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms novels. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per BOZ. Once the entire trilogy is released, depending on sales status and reviews, we might very well see these books (and a distinct article on them) again. But for the moment, they're best merged.Shemeska (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect without prejudice towards receation as per Shemeska. McJeff (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as title itself violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is no salvageable material for a merge because of the redlinks. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms novels. As an article by itself, it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Merged with the list, it should be fine. Once the trilogy is fully released, I wouldn't be against the re-creation of it, as long as there's some content to it. --JamieS93 14:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete both (author blanked pages). ... discospinster _talk 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maulie and Friends[edit]

Some person's cross-over fancomic. Google search reveals no non-Wikipedia-related hits, suggesting no coverage in reliable sources and thus failing the verifiability guideline. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this subject is found to be non-notable, Miss Ani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should probably be deleted per the same rationale as well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't believe I missed that one. Nominated and added to this AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
o.0 ... ... Delete as nn. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as like totally non-notable. X Marx The Spot (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief that is awful. What's worse is someone wants to make a portal for this. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. DarkAudit (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails on so many fronts: WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT, etc. (Emperor (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Article creator Temarivosa (talk · contribs) has now blanked both articles except for the AFD notices. Does this qualify for a speedy or what? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged G7 speedy for blanking. DarkAudit (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per nom. --John (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Prevails[edit]

Fails notability requirements for bands. There are also WP:COI issues as well. I initially nominated the article for speedy deletion, but the article author disputed this so I opted to withdraw the CSD nom and bring matter here for the community to determine. X Marx The Spot (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. No reliable independent sources and no assertion of notability beyond a handful of local performances and a second place in a four-band battle of the bands. --Muchness (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is one of my favorite bands. They're pretty well known in Michigan. Don't delete their page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beholdthecrucifixion (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Beholdthecrucifixion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per reasons stated. Also, please note that the above user's only edit is to this discussion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsigned, no albums released, no notability. --Bardin (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Take a look at this edit by the sock account: [42]. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All that's relevant here is that he's been flagged as {{spa}}, which I've done. Nothing else has bearing on this article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. I agree that this article could be speedy deleted under A7. No assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC is made. No reliable sources are given; the only external link is to Myspace. —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to motion that this be closed under WP:SNOW, WP:MUSIC and the continued abuse via the sockpuppet/meatpuppet talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep Everyone has voted keep.--JForget 01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology controversies[edit]

This article is a digusting violation of half of our content policies. Some notes I've made about the article:

We have a summary of Scientology's less-than-savoury practices in the main page.
The controversy article was 60kb, half of the main page.
The controversies page has been problematic for over a year.
There's more weaseling in that article than I have ever seen, with statements such as "Critics say" or "oft-cited rumour"
The page is full of NPOV against the Church and allegations are flown around, with only one paragraph detailing the CoS' response.
I'm surprised this has been kept up, given the Church's ligitiousness (sp?)

It's articles like that which lower Wikipedia's credibility. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for anti-or-pro-anything rants. The page is completely against our policy of neutral point of view. And for the record, I'm against Scientology. By the way, don't bother with the "Look how many sources this article has!" argument. That argument has been tried and tested on other articles of the soapboxing kind (most Allegations of arpartheid articles), and they still got deleted. It fails to correctly get to the point of this matter: this is a hopeless soapbox with no chance of ever being POV on its own. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely notable article topic, and yes, it certainly does have plenty of citations to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Very useful article to tie in lots of sub-topics/articles together - though it could use some cleanup. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A controversy article on Scientology is valid because the Scientology movement has been... well... controversial. The nominations dismissal of "Look how many sources this article has!" looks arrogant, considering that the presence of relevant and reliable sources goes right at the heart of the notability and verifiability policies. To make it clear, the sources clearly demonstrate that this is a topic which is of considerable public interest and therefore notable. Three of the six points listed in the nomination are irrelevant to deletion. Weasel words, and NPOV problems are all surmountable. The last point about the church suing is a problem I'd classify as "very potential", and if the church did take legal action, that would be an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation, and not the community. Points one and two just shows that this is an example of WP:SUMMARY style coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not so much of a summary, to be honest: a crude word count gives it 3500 words. And yes, weaseling and NPOV problems are surmountable, but there comes a time when the vast scale and longetivity of them means you'll have to see, "right, enough is enough". Sceptre ^(talk) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article definitely has a lot of problems, but they're basically all WP:SYN violations. Many general statements are backed up by sources with more specific points -- such as saying "...has a reputation for hostile action toward anyone that criticizes it..." and sourcing that statement with 4 specific cases of intimidation. Sources/wording in this article needs to be changed so that it makes use of literature that's critical of the organization, rather than making originally-researched generalizations based on news reports. These issues are more than workable though. The topic is certainly more than notable -- Scientology is, after all, probably the most controversial religion, if not one of the most controversial topics overall, of our time. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:04, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Keep, extremely notable article and a seemingly bad faith nomination. Controversy is basically all there is to scientology for many of us living in the Xenu-free zone of Teegeeack. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Our only defence against Xenu. But in all seriousness lots of third party sources and reputable news coverage. The article may need some work, but the whole of the Scientology project is a battleground of POV pushing. The article needs improving not deleting. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Viable topic, supported by sources, and the puzzling argument by the nom that sources are irrelevant comes across as an attempt at a variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and the nomination as a whole comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there's an issue with something that's covered in the article, take it up within the article itself. And before anyone goes "would you vote for keeping Anglican controversies or Buddhist controversies", damn right I would, if they were sourced, etc etc. 23skidoo (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator put the article up after making a unilateral change to a redirect that was reverted: [43] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a notable topic. The article may have problems, but none of them are reasons for deletion. Klausness (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issues presented in the article are, no doubt, notable and of encyclopedic relevance. It would be simply too much to merge this article on the main article on Scientology. Therefore, it makes sense to keep this article as a stand-alone article. --Abrech (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nominator that the "Look how many sources this article has!" argument is detrimental to his case, and understand why he would set up a "straw man argument" in an attempt to discurage that line of thought. I agree that with all the WP:RS already contained in the article, this article is not only notable, but has all the internal mechanisms neccisary to fix any problems within the article. additionaly this article is a main page for a subset of scientology related articles so deleting it would (sorta, i understand I am misusing the word but I think it works) "orphin" a block of articles, and the redirect that was done by the nominator would have cramed even more information into the Scientology page, which is already huge. also I don't believe that we should edit in fear of lawsuits, just in accordance to the law. Perhaps the nominatior would like to review the law books (in the US. and the UK) and let us know exactly what stature he is worried about us beeing sued for.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stub violently. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs appropriate templates like NPOV disputed (?) and needs more work. It's a public, emotive area. Editors just need to wrestle with the standard NPOV suggestions. DJ Barney (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and properly referenced.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Issues? Yes. Grounds for deletion? No. AfD is not for cleanup. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh give me a fucking break, really. There are enough Scientology controversies to probably fork this article into sub-articles. We do this for technical reasons as not everyone is fortunate enough to have broadband. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best argument thus far, and something people need to remember. This probably started out as a section of Scientology, but got split off when it got too big. This practice tends to produce easy targets at AfD, but it would be best not to discourage such splits, since they are necessary for practical reasons. Maybe a nav template should be added to this and other articles to show that it's merely part of a Scientology series. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:23, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Keep AfD is not cleanup. Clearly there are enough controversies to not only justify that we cover it but to also justify that we keep a seperate article about it. Calling the article disgusting is frankly not helping you either. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and documented. Yopie 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Keep as a notable subject.--Berig (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are three issues here: is the subject notable, is it justifiable to have an article about the subject and is the article adequate? The subject is certainly notable and well-documented. There's far too much material to incorporate into Scientology, so it's a justifiable spinout article. However, I do agree that there are some major POV problems; the article badly needs to be cleaned up. However, that isn't, by itself, grounds for deleting an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleaning up, yes, but the topics dealt with are adequately sourced and notable enough to warrant a separate article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWBALL. Subject is notable. Reliable sources have discussed it at length. "Editors may need their heads banging together" is not a reason for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep does this count as a scientology controversy?:) Merkin's mum 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Why would there even be any question about this? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDefiantly a valid article. May require some cleanup but in no way a deletion.Cdynas (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, and important. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD doesn't stand a SNOWBALL'S chance in a volcano stacked with spacecraft resembling DC-8 airliners then blown up with hydrogen bombs of ending with anything other than Keep (Sorry, probably quite rude, but couldn't help myself). I'll grant that splitting in this manner does create nasty potential for POV fork, but deletion is hardly the way to fix such issues. -Verdatum (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the content is encyclopaedic and well-sourced. Merging it into the Scientology article is a bad idea, since the latter already stands at 115 kilobytes. Ayla (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The controversies surrounding the topic of Scientology are so notable as to make this AfD laughable. Yes there are problems. No it shouldn't be deleted. --Good Damon 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sceptre, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I suspect this may be yet another unnecessary exercise in point making regarding the word "controversy" in article titles [44]. Please stop. If that is not the case, this subject clearly meets notability standards and the references are both reliable and verifiable. Cheers, --Simple Paradox 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...??!??!? am I to read that this whole feasco was just an exercise in seeing if an editor could enforce a particular POV in the interpritation of policy that was shot down at the administrators noticeboard? Can we snowball close this AFD and get on with life?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per what User:Dance With The Devil wrote:

It should be noted that this is a frivolous nomination by a party on a crusade against controversial articles:

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy/archive2

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientology_controversies

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies/archive1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Trav (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against deletion but I don't think there are any grounds to call this a frivolous nomination. Sceptre pointed out some very real concerns. The fact that he's nominated other controversy articles might just go to show that controversy articles need the most attention, and I would tend to agree there. Try to assume some good faith here. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:36, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Comment Scepter is a good editor, who contributes more positive stuff to wikipedia than I do, and this AFD should not take away from that. His summary deletion of this article through redirect did show that he was less conserned with bringing issues to light, and more conserned with making a point, and unfortunatly that point appears to revolve around the summary exicution of his interpritation of rules without consensus in a highly "contriversial" area of wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep 1. a summery existing is not a reason to remove an article. 2. size is not a reason for deletion. 3. AFD is not for cleanup. 4. yes, the article has problems (i would expect POV issues on a subject this contiversal), yes, it needs work, but no, that doesn't create cause for deletion. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious, speedy keep. A well-written and researched article on a highly notable subject. POV issues should be resolved on the talk page, not by nominating the article for deletion. As everyone else here seems to agree, could someone close this under WP:SNOW, please? Terraxos (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This nomination is a disgusting violation of basic deletion guidelines. The only issue here is maintaining NPOV, and that's a regular process of editing; deletion is not the remedy for that. Deletion is a remedy for no sources or not notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others here. All of these concerns brought up in the nomination can be handled via editing and article cleanup; deletion isn't remotely necessary. Rray (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and the nom is bordering on being WP:POINTY, as well. This discussion by Sceptre four days prior to the nomination is troubling. This is not the first time I've witnessed a 'Screw the consensus, it's my way or the highway' attitude from him, which is a reckless disregard of how this encyclopedia is supposed to operate. SashaNein (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scientology is riddled with controversies and is a controversial subject in and of itself. This is a well sourced, verifiable, and useful guide to information on the controversies and criticisms sparked by the movement. --GHcool (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. I was wrong. Enigma ^message Review 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Afghanistan[edit]

Can't see why this deserves its own article unless there's sufficient material to warrant an article. So far, I haven't seen it. Stating that it was illegal and that it's a problem is not sufficient reason for the article to exist. Enigma ^message Review 07:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This was prodded on April 7th, but someone removed it, citing notability. Enigma ^message Review 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's definitely been covered to make it notable. The external links should be used as sources (where possible) and the POV wording of the stub is not very illuminating, but this should be easy to clean up. Who are the people who are working on this series of articles? Is it all Dwanyewest (talk · contribs)? --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable, just because it is brief doesn't warrant deletion - we don't have a deadline. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. The article needs a lot of work to make it more than a stub, but that's definitely not a reason for deletion if the topic is notable. Klausness (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that there is not significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of God of North Carolina[edit]

Fails to meet WP:ORG criteria. The article has been unreferenced for over a year and a Google search doesn't show any RS. The article contains information such as "According to church sources..." and "It is believed by this group...". AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It is true that the article remained unreferenced for too long a time, and it is also doubtful whether the organisation meets the criteria set forth in WP:ORG. However, the cited "declaration of independence" of the church is somewhat original and notable. Therefore, I would tend to keep the article on the church. Deletion, however, may also be in line with Wikipedia policies. --Abrech (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having been involved in churches until I was 21, I've seen many of them "split" because of theological differences or even petty arguments. Unless there's a RS stating why this split (aka declaration of independence) is notable, I don't see a reason why the article should stay. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I doubt there will be neutral sources available and as nom. says - fails WP:ORG. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am fairly unqualified to give an opinion on the notability of a church, but I would bring to your attention the fact that there is a book about this church [45]. I am not aware of the author's connection to the organization. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief google search shows he is an eastern Baptist theologian, so I am unsure as to the neutrality in the book. I still think overall the topic isn't notable enough anyway, and I still doubt sufficient sources will become available. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Does not meet notability requirements per WP:N and WP:ORG. No independent sources available to establish notability, much less to verify article's content. Dgf32 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was restore Disambiguation page and delete current content. Notability not established. (to Eastmain's point in favour of retention: The typical source you supply is indeed reliable but the subject gets a one sentence quote. (I'm assuming if you found a better/lengthier one you would have given it) The article is not about the subject. I've been quoted at length, more than just a sentence, in multiple reliable sources of the same general level, but I am not notable.) The dab is useful so the page should remain, but absent a clear consensus to keep, non notable or marginally notable BLPs should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bates[edit]

Not notable. Not a single source provided Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, not notable. OptimistBen (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this used to be a disambiguation page. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split We should split the disam from page and Speedy Delete the rest. There are no WP:RS, that show why this is notable and the only author was an IP who seems to be in violation of WP:COI as his/her major edits have to do with the gentleman-in-question's orginization. FYI I placed a notice on the author's page directing him/her here. This entry reads like a bio from a website, and shouldn't be included here.--Adamfinmo (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not revert it back to a disamb page, in the process wiping the current information? Is there another disamb that replaced it? OptimistBen (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seem to be multiple reliable sources. See this Google search. Here's a typical one: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/56022.html --Eastmain (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12- copyvio of [46]. Could also be reverted to the redirect; I would think that the copyrighted revisions should be pulled, though. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siqing Lu[edit]

No assertions of notability. Unless notability asserted and shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep After a few minutes at google, appears to be rather notable, and definitely passes WP:MUSIC. See Grammy.com:"...leading Chinese concert violinist", Official site listing international tours, and winning the Paganini_Competition. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rather than spending time deleting, why don't you fill in some basic notability information real quick? OptimistBen (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some expansion and added a couple of references. Notability has now been clearly shown. PeterSymonds | talk 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bfigura. --Bardin (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Verging on speedy. Maybe you should have looked this person up first? Directing the Violin Department at Naxos might itself be notable enough, the rest even moreso.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star of idaho[edit]

I can't find any information whatsoever to back this up on Google. Appears to be a hoax. References are dead ends, and the report number can't be found either. nneonneo ^talk 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a hoax. There is no information on Google regarding this stone, because this article is its first exposure to the world. The two sources listed are distinguished members of the Geology Department at University of Idaho, and the Gemological Institute of America report number is the results of testing done by the Institute regarding the authenticity of the Star of Idaho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patellison42 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I'll need the exact carat number to check the report. It's still a bit dubious that there are zero sources for it. nneonneo ^talk 04:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you can only check the reports for diamonds. According to their page, you have to call their customer service for colored stones. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I guess I need to read more carefully. Thanks! nneonneo ^talk 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if, as has been claimed above, Wikipedia is this gem's first public outing then it is neccesarily not notable - yet. If or when somebody writes about it in some other reliable place then it gets an article. Otherwise its original research and unverified.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fascinating story, but without sources it's not notable. If the gem community starts oo-ing and ah-ing at the sheer statistical awesomeness, it will be. But for now we don't have anything telling us it's more significant than that tennis ball. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, for crying out loud, why are wasting our time with this rubbish. Come back with good refs and sources, if this is actually real. But in the current reality reality, we need to speedy this crap. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Satisfying as that may seem, WP:CSD offers no provisions that I can see for speedy deletion of this article. --Dhartung | Talk 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD 1 or 3, perhaps? WP:IAR? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not patent nonsense, and it isn't immediately obvious that it is a hoax -- you can tag it if you like, though, since the consensus seems to be well-established at this point and is unlikely to change with four more days of debate. nneonneo ^talk 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this gem exists, it is currently not notable. If this gem does not exist, it should be speedy deleted as a hoax. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for a subject to get its "first exposure to the world". If this item is real, and someday gets media exposure, then we can have an article about it. Deli nk (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This gem is the largest of its kind in the world. Why would Wikipedia not be an appropriate place for something like that?--Patellison42 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3. This is a $5 rock from a museum gift shop. PCock (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Even if this is not a hoax, it is blatantly original research which violates WP:OR as wikipedia is not a news source. Earthdirt (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An amazingly bad hoax. Extra points for this sentence: "After spending 8 years as a doorstop in the form of a giant garnet cluster in John's home, he decided to see what the cluster contained." The last guy only spent five years as a doorstop. And I love the image of the "Star of Idaho". What is that, a ball bearing on a table? Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this now qualifies for WP:SNOW. nneonneo ^talk 14:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fygnificm[edit]

Non-notable slang term fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:V. Suspected hoax. Disputed Prod. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which removed the "prod" tag had earmarkings of vandalism, not a good-faith effort to improve the page or dispute the tagging. The anon editor, for example, removed other tags and edits with no explanation or justification. I would not have called this a disputed prod. Regardless, delete both for being a mere dictionary definition and a hoax. Rossami (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total dog shit. JuJube (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best an unnotable WP:DICDEF. --Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google finds absolutely nothing. Even if it were a real word, it would almost certainly be a neologism. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. Tagged as such. DarkAudit (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G1 and possibly G3. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While it may be vandalism (G3), there is no confirming evidence in the contributor's edit history to clearly demonstrate it. It is definitely not patent nonsense (G1) in the very narrow way we use that term at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I think that AFD is now the only way to go. Rossami (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are we at WP:SNOW yet? DarkAudit (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why should we be trying to make a rush to judgment? The process appears to be working fine. Rossami (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a case where process gives crap more life than it deserves. DarkAudit (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with lots of extra snow. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable.--Berig (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Madden (solicitor)[edit]

Non-notable solicitor in Northern Ireland. Madden's former partner Pat Finucane is highly notable for his unsolved murder, but this article is just advertising. The only reference is a link to the firm's own website. I suggest deletion, and then a redirect to Pat Finucane (solicitor) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. Nn-solicitor, and notability isn't inherited from the murder of one's business partners Bfigura ^(talk) 04:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PCock (talk • contribs)
Delete as non-notable.--Berig (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, seems like an advertisement to me. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN and blatant advertising Dreamspy (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nn and spam ukexpat (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G3 - Vandalism) by JzG. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Tetsugake[edit]

Appears to be a hoax; can't find coverage of this supposed artist in reliable sources, all of the manga he's supposedly authored are either non-existant or hoaxes (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Blade (manga)) and the creator of the article, Kira99er (talk · contribs), has a history of creating hoax articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as blatant hoax by blatant hoaxer. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Some g-hits, so it doesn't appear to be a hoax, but probably not notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We'd need an admin to see just how many hoax articles the user has created; they're deleted so I can't tell. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request granted User:Kira99er ~~has one deleted article,~~ Sakaru Akazawa. It was delted bu User:Mailer Diablo as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakaru Awazaki Cheers Dlohcierekim 05:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kira has a long history of creating self-promotional articles; see this AfD, this one and this one, all of which were linked to on his talk page. The entirety of Kira's edits have been creating pages about manga and characters he created, or adding original research to a Naruto article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll put your fidnigs on the Soul Blade afd. Dloh cierekim 05:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems likely to me that the creator of this article, Kira99er, is Akira Tesugake and that he is using Wikipedia to promote Soul Blade. viz http://comixpedia.com/manga_artist_looking_wrighter#comment-30723. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn Dloh cierekim
Delete and block user for persistent hoaxmongering. As a side note, it is 99.9% likely that Akira Tetsugake is not his real name, just some made-up weeaboo name he gave himself. JuJube (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domo arigato Dloh cierekim 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G3 - Vandalism) by JzG. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Blade (manga)[edit]

Somebody's home-made comic/manga. Not notable at all. The creator, Kira99er (talk · contribs), has a history of creating hoax or made up manga series. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Not sure about the notability, but not a hoax: [47] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this post, see-- http://comixpedia.com/manga_artist_looking_wrighter#comment-30723 seems credible. Creator appears tobe using Wikipedia to promote his wares. Dloh cierekim 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrg. That's not a good reason. Subject is just not notable as far as I can see. Dloh cierekim 14:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one deleted article created by User:Kira99er. It was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakaru Awazaki . Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per NeoChaosX, Kira has a long history of creating self-promotional articles; see this AfD, this one and this one, all of which were linked to on his talk page. The entirety of Kira's edits have been creating pages about manga and characters he created, or adding original research to a Naruto article. Dloh cierekim 05:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block user for hoaxmongering. JuJube (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Castignoli[edit]

This man's 15 minutes of fame are already over. The only reason that he is in the press is because made a failed attempt to curse the New York Yankees by putting a Red Sox jersey in New Yankee Stadium. If the the jersey had remained there, and there was some sort of "Curse of the Jersey" that was noteable enough to have its own article, then maybe an article for Castignoli would be justifyable (but I'd still vote to merge with Curse of the Jersey. However, the jersey was removed well before any games were played at the stadium, and by the time that the Yankees move in no one will care. Simply put, this article has no staying power. Afdnom (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. MBisanz ^talk 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls under WP:BLP1E. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might deserve a brief mention in the stadium article, but seems like a WP:BLP1E.--Cube lurker (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If the Yankees don't press charges, this will all be forgotten in a month or so. DarkAudit (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Yankee Stadium, as a reasonable search term, since his action with the jersey is already covered in that article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deserves a one-sentence mention in New Yankee Stadium at most; otherwise nothing justifies this article on its own. White 720 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Yankee Stadium. Spanneraol (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mention this in the New Yankee Stadium article at the most —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.190.2 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Brian Adler (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was obviously a notable thing to have done. Anber (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You guys obviously don't follow baseball; this will be a historical fact one day. This article is verifiable and the act it describes is noteable. Strong keep. 70.48.220.113 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G12 as copyvio by User:David Eppstein, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Zhang[edit]

Notability not established, and reads like promotion and probably copyvio. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G12 copyvio of [48] Bfigura ^(talk) 04:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a G12 copyvio. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Precursor[edit]

Non-notable StarCraft campaign. It is a piece of software and cannot be speedily deleted. The campaign can be downloaded here Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 03:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into StarCraft. Doesn't appear notable on its own. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--Berig (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. It doesn't worth to be merged with Starcraft. Maybe just add the name in the campaigns. Nothing more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. I too don't feel it's worthy of being merged with Starcraft; as Magioladitis said, perhaps just merge the campaigns. SMC (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no merge is necessary, it is already covered sufficiently in StarCraft#Expansion of the PC version. --- Sabre (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge to Starcraft as it is a bad idea to add uncited text to an FA. I can't find good sources on the net.--Lenticel ^(talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --SkyWalker (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fazeri[edit]

I have nominated the article for deletion based on the below reasons:
1- Newly-coined words or terms (neologisms) not supported by reliable sources
2- Fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N)
3- Article cannot be attributed to reliable sources
4- It is not suitable for an encyclopedia (via WP:SOAP : Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page is an obvious violation of WP:NEO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:COATRACK. --CreazySuit (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has had a content dispute involving the nominator, which became a mess on the article's talk. Might want to go through that before making a !vote. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO - not notable neologism Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it should have been speedy deleted in the first place. --Pejman47 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and very little information is available from neutral sources. Nokhodi (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One reference (from the coiner) does not prove this is a notable term. --Folantin (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Ali Doostzadeh. Also see the discussion in its respective talk page.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Folantin.--Berig (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Irpen 06:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename, there is a discussion on the talk page and additional references relevant to the subject. Topic about the linguistic and cultural abuse of identity against at least 16 million people cannot be non-noteable.Atabek (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ensuing comments have been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Fazeri. We shouldn't be cluttering up the AfD page with lengthy back and forth arguments and discussions on any and every topic that arises. Lengthy discussions should be confined to the talk page. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable term, I’d wish editors to take careful care in reading Atabek additions which have no relevancy, and to not be mislead with the current length of the article which was artificially doubled with background which would rather fit in other more appropriate articles. The arguments surrounding the request for deletion has little to do with the articles size, Atabek should take note on that. VartanM (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , it can't be renamed ! the whole article is about a newly-coined word or term.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Notability not established. Absent a clear consensus to keep, non notable or marginally notable BLPs should be deleted. Therefore delete. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qu Xin[edit]

Nearly all of the claims of notability are themselves redlinks, which calls into question how notable the accomplishments were. Unless further notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found. While sourcing foreign language stuff always raises 'system bias' problems, the fact that the only english language sources found are self-promo articles on ebay and a dating website suggest that this may just be a case of non-notabilty Bfigura ^(talk) 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, seems fairly non notable unless we can establish sources. Even the Chinese article appears very short. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Berig (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qiao Qiao[edit]

Only claim to notability ("first Lesbian singer") appears highly dubious, and there's no other claim of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The full quote is "China's first lesbian singer" (ie, out), which is rather more plausible. (And the claim is sourced as well). While the source isn't the NYT, it does appear to be genuine (ie, not a self-pub/autobio). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The fact that the editor proposing deletion did not take the 40 seconds it would have taken to notify the article's creator shows bad faith, and reinforces the suspicion that this is a disruptive proposal. Badagnani (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AFD clearly indicates that notification is optional. When an "optional" notification suddenly becomes mandatory in your mind, it makes it clear that you are the one being disruptive. --Nlu (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The AfD has been up for less than an hour, and (obviously) no consensus exists. Additionally, notifying the article's creator is optional, not mandatory. Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't the better idea be to assume Nlu was acting in good faith and merely forgot to notify the creator? Either way, I went ahead and notified User:Emiellaiendiay, the creator of the article. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, because the editor told me him/herself that s/he would not do so. I informed him/her that to do so would show courtesy, yet s/he maintained that s/he would not do so. Badagnani (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That shows discourtesy, but not bad faith. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discourtesy, bad faith, and uninformed AFDing--all combine to create a situation that is not conducive to the positive furthering of our project. Any doubts, just look in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abing. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that being China's first 'out' lesbian singer probably confers some notability Bfigura ^(talk) 04:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, substantial claim of notability, although she probably fails WP:MUSIC per se. I've added various reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being the first openly lesbian artist in China definitely makes her notable. Klausness (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure that she passes WP:MUSIC, but passes WP:N. As above, being the first openly lesbian artist in China is definitely noatble, and coverage seems sufficient. --Beloved Freak 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above meets our notability guidelines for reasons expressed by Klausness and others. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:N with the sources listed. Aleta ^Sing 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. --Bardin (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepAn artist coming out in a society as repressive and as important as China is notable. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep China has loosened up on homosexuality to some degree so I'm hesitant to keep on the lesbian basis. (Besides which I would not be shocked if it turned out there had been openly lesbian singers in Republican or dynastic China) Still she is apparently notable enough to be the subject of legitimate media outside herself.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G4 - Recreation of deleted material. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-zero z[edit]

Delete per WP:FUTURE. The only source states that it is a rumour. nneonneo^talk 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probable speedy as well. This article was deleted before (as F-Zero Z). It's nothing more than an April Fools' joke. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged. nneonneo^talk 03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom and NeoChaosX. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Absent a clear consensus to keep (this was listed for the normal time) non notable or marginally notable BLPs should be deleted. No notability established, therefore delete. --++Lar: t/c 04:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Brown (sports broadcaster)[edit]

Hes a phone screener and producer for different shows on Fox Sports Radio, not very notable. Plus I tried to find other radio producers but not even the Howard Stern staff has their own articles. Everyone listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Radio_producers seems to have done other things that just screen calls and produce for radio. Looking at the history it looks like he created the article himself. Coasttocoast (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. It is an admirable attempt to establish notability but with zero references. I'm not seeing how a sports talk radio phone screener and blogger would be notable. Difficult to locate verifiable sources on this person due to the numerous athletes and coaches he shares his name with (see Larry Brown).--Rtphokie (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not quite obvious enough for a speedy but pretty clearly a hoax, and clear consensus to delete this non notable BLP. Absent a positive consensus to keep, non notable or marginally notable BLPs should be deleted. Therefore, delete. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Slagle[edit]

I can't actually find any references online that this person has anything to do with skiing. Several of the claims in the article make me suspect it's a hoax. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete as ~~likely~~ probable hoax. Basing that on the fact that Slagle's name isn't listed on the ski teams roster. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Very likely hoax, no info seems to exist on this guy. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete per arguments above. Only search results for "Benjamin Slagle" ski and "Ben Slagle" ski on Google point to this page. Sources and I may change my mind, but as of now, evidence points to hoax. Spell4yr (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure it's worth anything, but some of the article creator's other edits indicate Benjamin Slagle is an amateur filmmaker attempting to promote a "viral video" of skiing tricks. Rnb (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNeeds to be ab obvious hoax to speedy delete. Dloh cierekim 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any verifiable sources for any of it. Dloh cierekim 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely NOT a hoax. Scarborough_High_School_(Maine), but not notable either, so delete. SunCreator (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how valid the Scarborough High School entry is, as the same person who created the Benjamin Slagle page added that entry to the alumni list. Rnb (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax, certainly NN; and remove any entries about him which the same author has managed to leave in Scarborough_High_School_(Maine), where he has quite an edit history. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax, because my searches only turned up a college soccer player by this name and not an alpine skiier. Plus, if as indicated above, he is not on the roster of the team suggested in the article... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAZ (singer)[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:Music requirements; author has not provided appropriate secondary sources despite several requests AndrewHowse (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, appears to fail WP:Music, also copy-vio from here John .n-IRL 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. Article does appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G12 copyvio of the Bio section of this page (CDBaby is probably copying the singers official bio). (Not a direct link, need to click through some flash). Tagging as such Bfigura ^(talk) 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep With revisions. Artist has worked with another notable artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punchbowl1030 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Oh baby you....you got what I neeeeed...but you say he's just a friend. You say he's just a friend. Which of course means, keep, nomination withdrawn. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Friend[edit]

Non-notable by itself, no sources. Not useful as a redirect imho. Dorftrottel (complain) 02:04, April 15, 2008 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it was a popular song, it's unlikely to grow beyond a stub (since all the verifiable information about it can be summed as "Top 10 Song" that's been sampled by various artists). It would be a somewhat misleading redirect, and the Artist's article already contains all the relevant information. Per WP:MUSIC, that leaves us with delete. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that it cannot grow beyond a stub is not a reason to delete it; it was a fairly popular song that is still well known today (albeit via some Internet memes) and it was a single. Other singles have survived the AfD process with less. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've noticed that too. (The other stubby singles surviving bit). I'm just quoting WP:MUSIC above, but I don't have any special attachment to it. If consensus has changed, someone should probably update (or start a discussion) on the guideline's page. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"that it cannot grow beyond a stub is not a reason to delete it" — Correct! And that's also not the rationale in my nomination. Vote keep iff you know of sources or such have been found and introduced by someone else. Sources, sources, sources. Dorftrottel (criticise) 09:25, April 15, 2008

Strong keep per WP:MUSIC: Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. This song reached #9 on the Billboard Hot 100. Twelve years later, Mario borrowed its chorus for "Just a Friend 2002", which hit #4 on the Hot 100. Among the artists who have performed "Just a Friend" in concert are Eminem and Barenaked Ladies. And MTV and Rolling Stone magazine ranked "Just a Friend" on their list of the top 100 pop songs since 1963. [49] I will help improve the article during this AfD unless other people get to it first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the thing is notable, reliable sources accounting for its notability shouldn't be hard to come up with. Do you know any such sources? Dorftrottel (vandalise) 09:21, April 15, 2008

strong keep A song that's been in the top ten is intrinsically notable. Notability is not temporary. Merkin's mum 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for sources, how's about any of these 176 articles that mention the song on google news? [50] people really should used google news to check. There seem to be a few people with the misconception on AfD recently that because there's no sources in an article, it should be deleted. Not so, provided reliable sources exist, they simply need to be added, at most a "references" tag should be put at the top. In the meantime, the subject is still notable and should have an article. Merkin's mum 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources, one of those that don't only talk about how amateurish the rapping is, correctly says that he is notable mainly for this song. Maybe we should merge Biz Markie into this article? I just don't see how having two articles with so sparse content can be a good idea. If we did that with every article, we'd have no problem reaching like 6,827,761 articles, but Wikipedia would be so bloated. Oh, hold on, phone's ringing. Dorftrottel (ask) 11:13, April 15, 2008

Keep. As mentioned, a top 10 song in the U.S. is notable in spite (because?) of the amateurish performance you mentioned. Hey, he was William Hung before there was William Hung. I could live with a merge to Biz Markie and have the title redirect to him, but of course you don't need Afd for that. Xymmax (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough.--Berig (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly withdraw. Still don't agree that we need two articles for one notable thing, but nevermind. Dorftrottel (canvass) 19:15, April 15, 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ty 02:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia/discordia[edit]

This article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources given that I am one of the people mentioned in this article and the information is not accurate. Also, subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline and is probably self published by one of the other people mentioned in the article. Lastly, the content not suitable for an encyclopedia given that it's possibly a self promotion tactic, which makes it a soapbox. This nomination is for the page Concordia/discordia, not Discordia. Alrightypewriter123 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, etc, as per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom John .n-IRL 02:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable art collective that fails WP:ORG. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Berig (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. - No evidence of notability. Clear consensus to delete. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Harrison[edit]

Subject is not notable and the claims made in the article are dubious. The only source provided is a dead link. A google search does not link the name "Ryan Harrison" with any of the works the article says he has written Stanley011 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability and no assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO criteria. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with RnB, fails wp:bio John .n-IRL 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Berig (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. LOL!! Meat Packaging and Labelling 2007--there's a notable bestseller if I ever heard of one! Qworty (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melodeclamation[edit]

Neologism. Less than 400 Google hits [51], most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Also OR and redundant because we already have Melodrama#Melodrama in opera and song. S.dedalus (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more an obsolete term than a neologism. Numerous sources in Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 00:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neologism implies that the term was recently coined - given that the term appears to date back to the 19th century, this is certainly not the case. The term appears to be uncommonly used today, but the sources look solid enough. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure that the term musical declamation is essentially the same. It's in slightly wider use. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Musical declamation. From references both in google and Google Books I strongly suspect that "melodeclamation" is but a calque from Russian language. Any Russian speakers to comment? BTW "melodic declamation" can also be found. Laudak (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. There are almost 4,000 Google hits for that. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neologism? o.0? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly transwiki to Wiktionary if they will have it. This is a dictionary definition of an outdated and obsolete term. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously a notable subject per comments above, and the article is certainly not a dictionary definition. If you object to the inclusion of etymology then just remove it - you'll still be left with an encyclopedia article. The best name for the article can be decided on the talk page, but this is clearly not the same as Melodrama#Melodrama in opera and song. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VCMC Motorsport Club[edit]

This page was actually linked to from an Internet forum asking people to come vandalize it. I had requested page protection for it, but after looking at it, I really can't see anything that shows notability. I did a Google news search, but found nothing...obviously, if sources can be found, I'll withdraw the nom... Smashville^BONK! 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any RS in a Google search. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonverifiable. Laudak (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Berig (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Noatable.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW as doubtful, not notable, and/or can not be verified. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baronetcy of Srebrenica[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin:

~~Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DrHollisCollier~~

~~Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerDurden1963 TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

Sockpuppetry confirmed per User:Thatcher [52] TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a hoax, please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHollisCollier (talk • contribs) 10:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about stopping this process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHollisCollier (talk • contribs) 11:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't stop the process. You have to wait for the outcome of the discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any evidence to back this up on Google. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you're not looking in Croatian.User:TylerDurden1963 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obzor spomen-knjiga 1860-1935 by Milivoj Dezman; Rudolf Maixner

Politicka povijest Hrvatske by Josip Horvat contain details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden1963 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, apologies for forgetting: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8dv9gi8InPkC&dq=history+of+croatia+book&ei=MIIESICXFobCyQTG9cnRBg —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden1963 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have form on saving articles from over-zealous administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Vinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden1963 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My problems with article are: There is no evidence on google, name of the artist because I only see name of Thomas Mertz [53] which is special effects coordinator in movie A Very Brady Sequel [54] and we are having link to Srebrenica ????? I know croatian and serbian so you can show me link which will confirm article statements. --Rjecina (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add something useful - I know only this German reference to the title. I believe it has fallen from general use. - http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8964

~~Keep~~ - This is notable, and has clear references to it in the text. To non-Croatian speakers, maybe these seem confusing? Thomasthesnail (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does have references, but the point is that they don't actually back up what is said in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thomas mertz is perhaps a different spelling? ThalloczyŠufflay (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it, but I think you'd be wrong to delete this article. I'm chasing up the Mertz issue. TylerDurden1963 (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Thank you, I will try to help ThalloczyŠufflay (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really want to be blocked from editing wikipedia ? 2 SPA accounts created in less of 2 hours with only aim to create or support "article" Baronetcy of Srebrenica--Rjecina (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop bullying the guy, he's new. Wikipedia has far too much of this. Act in haste, repent at leisure TylerDurden1963 (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep --> sorry! please keep~~ -I am new, but please do not delete the article - I will get it up to scratch, I am not sure if I can do it by the end of the day, but soon. It is exciting to have found something wikipedia lacked. My research assistant is the computer expert, I will ask him to assist DrHollisCollier (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thalloczy is my assistant. DrHollisCollier (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The content is bizarre. None of the 2 sources mention it, even in passing; nor does the one reference. The description "It was bounded on the north by the Duchy of Carinthia, on the north-east by the Duchy of Styria, on the south-east and south by Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia, and on the west by the County of Gorizia and Gradisca and Istria" is copied&pasted from Duchy of Carniola, which is about 400km from Srebrenica. The lead states that two Baronetcies were created in the Habsburg Empire, but doesn't mention the other one. And now we have people adding Ein Bruderzwist... which is a play set two hundred years before the Duchy of Carniola, and written 1 year before that Duchy was created, and yet its supposed to be a satire of the Baronetcy? And the baronetcy created by Thomas Mertz, when the article claimed it existed when the Empire did? Come on. Smelling very like a hoax to me. Bazzargh (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs further investigation - This is clearly a novice approach to writing an article, but I think I can help get it up to scratch. I'm not sure you can read books in Croatian by googling for them. Clearly the template has been used, and there may be some argument over the satire point, but this isn't a hoax, just an article with a history problem to be resolved. An interesting puzzle, I think TylerDurden1963 (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Baron is a difficult word in Croatian - it means something a little different, I mean it's the same, but not what you would say. Prettyblondegirl (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and it's smelling like socks around here. There is no evidence this ever existed other than some hand-waving. Sources such as this that are claimed to reference it do not. It is passingly unlikely that the Hapsburgs would have adopted the British aristocratic title of baronet; Germanic titles tended to be in German, for one thing (prinz, graf). The rank equivalent would have been Edler. --Dhartung | Talk 12:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Barunija Srebrenica in Croat. Baron is just a translation. TylerDurden1963 (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are no Google results for "Barunija Srebrenica" either. And also, please don't vote twice in the same discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1: there are variant spellings. 2: Google is *not* definitive. TylerDurden1963 (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that Google is not definitive, but it is a guide to notability. This and the unanswered questions raised by Bazzargh above make this sound very much like a hoax. I might be wrong, but it's better to have no article than one based on false information. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --> Analysis:the play is "set two hundred years" before the creation - and accordingly this must mean it's invalid? People *have* written historical plays before to satirise. This 'better to err on the side of trusting my google search results' approach to history is bizarre, rather than an article about a necessarily obscure subject. TylerDurden1963 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to rely on references, but they certainly don't have to be from Google. The point is that at the moment, none of the references used in the article support the claims that they appear next to. I notice that you're now adding the claim that Jurij Vega is linked to the Baronetcy of Srebrenica to lots of articles, again without any references. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also suspicious about Image:Srebrenitzacoat.JPG. It looks very much like a home-made modification of Image:Coat of arms of Croatia.svg. If TylerDurden1963 can't provide a source for it, I'll nominate it for deletion as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming really tired of this hoax. In my thinking we need checkuser for all 3 accounts which has created this hoax. This is without question hoax because of this historical data:

If we believe words about borders we will see that there is no difference between borders of this "baronetcy" and Duchy of Carniola (map of Austro-Hungary regions)

Kingdom of Illyria has been abolished and baronetcy has been created in 1849, but "courtesy title once held by Jurij Vega" (which has died in 1802) ? How is possible this if he has died in 1802 and baronetcy is created in 1849 ?

It is more interesting to read comments how baron of this baronetcy has been Franz Freiherr von der Trenck (baron Trenck) which has died in 1749 ????

To end I must say something about Croatian baronetcy in Slovenian borders and with name of Bosnian town which has been Ottoman territory until 1908. This is not possible !!

My thinking is that accounts TylerDurden1963 , ThalloczyŠufflay and DrHollisCollier need to be blocked because they have created this hoax.--Rjecina (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to prove this is not a hoax. See comment by Bazzargh. Take a look at Image:Srebrenitzacoat.JPG too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please keep I do not understand! Where are your sources for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Illyria or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_and_Slavonia ?? You are wholly self-referencing, and yet expect me to link to things on Google at the top of my hat? DrHollisCollier (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Title of baronet was not in Austrian Empire (or anywhere outside Commonwealth). Arms are bogus. Behavior of supporters is bogus (sockpuppets, double voting). And definitely not notable. Yopie 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Comment --> Correction Title clearly used in Croatia: http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/cravate.html Get your facts straight. DrHollisCollier (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in link is nothing about "baronetcy". Yopie 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment --> Correction This is an accurate representation. Whilst the coat of arms does not any longer exist, this picture does accurately reflect the Heraldry and patterns of the arms as described in academic texts. ( Borislav Arapovic, Hrvatski mirospis 1778, Matica hrvatska, Mostar, 1999, ISBN 9958-9448-2-0 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHollisCollier (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense, "the crown" is only from 1990 and cannot be cited in book from 1778. Please, don't waste our time. Yopie 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying makes no sense. "The oldest source confirming the coat as an official symbol is a genealogy of the Habsburgs, dated from 1512 to 1518. In 1525 it was used on a votive medal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Croatia Please do not confuse me for someone who does not know these things. You are wasting your own time by harassing me, when you would do well to let me contribute. I did not know that people on Wikipedia were so ferocious - how do I prove to you my scholarly research? DrHollisCollier (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --> Satisfied? I will prove this to you with the only thing you trust - Wikipedia. Your own pages already contain this information, and yet you question me? DrHollisCollier (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, because "crown" over arms was from 1990. "Sahovnica" is very old, but crown is new. Yopie 13:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

You are correct my friend, I'm sorry if I did not give you credit. The details of the crest are good enough, but you are right - I did not notice that! How quickly we forget these changes when we are looking for other details. Perhaps our asscociate the uploader would be so kind as to amend the picture? DrHollisCollier (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --> Notability One of your dear associates has sent me information on your policies - I am still learning! Notability does not seem to be an issue here, I find, considering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_and_Slavonia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ljudevit_Gaj

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Gorizia_and_Gradisca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Styria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Illyria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Carinthia

and 'so on'. Friends, you require better proof, and when my associate Thalloczy returns, we will get it and scan it in. The archives are not all electronic as yours may well be! It is past four here, so you must understand that this may have to wait until tomorrow! Thank you for teaching me, though. I am learning how Wikipedia works, and I would like my research to be available on your resource DrHollisCollier (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please keep I do not understand! Where are your sources for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Illyria or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_and_Slavonia ?? You are wholly self-referencing, and yet expect me to link to things on Google at the top of my hat? DrHollisCollier (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --> HANG ON Give me time to learn the rules! I have the information, I am compiling it, please give me some time to upload electronically & reference. This page now has MORE references than most other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHollisCollier (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am going home for dinner, my associate Thalloczy did not, it seems, return. Friends, do not delete my scholarship until I have come back online tomorrow (the internet is not available to me in the evenings here). I will come back, and we will - as you say - 'clean up' this article. Dr Hollis (not my name, you realise, but I mean for us to all work together in a spirit of friendship) DrHollisCollier (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AGAIN - This is a talk page, and yet Mr Larry keeps deleting what I write! He has deleted it AGAIN, thinking I was gone yet. I think he should be sanctioned. I HAVE NOT deleted what he has written here, though I disagree with it and have facts to prove so DrHollisCollier (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted your comments. I moved some to the bottom of the page and removed some duplicate text, but that was it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, DrHollisCollier keeps copy and pasting the entire contents of this page to Talk:Baronetcy of Srebrenica and when I remove them, accuses me of deleting his comments. Please continue the discussion here, DrHollisCollier, rather than copying it to other places. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I searched Google, Ask.com, MSN Live Search, Lycos, Yahoo, Google Books, and A9 for "Baronetcy of Srebrenica". The only result was by Google's main search engine, and it was the link to the Wikipedia page we are debating. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To start with, let's assume that "Baronet" was just a mistranslation. I see no evidence at all that the title Baronet was ever used in the area discussed--the references all seem to be to the word Baron, which is not identical. Our article on Baronet gives as an equivalent to Baronet "the Austrian and South German title of Edler von , but I don't see this in the sources either. So the question now becomes, whether there were Barons of Srebrenica. I still see no specific reference to any. DGG (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There is clearly a dispute, and some of the details may be less than entirely accurate, but there is clearly a consensus that much of this information is correct. Barons of Srebrenica have appeared in the references given, I've seen them mentioned at least twice. The problem I have is with Jurij Vega - there's an article that needs looking at, for the total lack of references given. 11347TCroa (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jurij Vega does need references, but at least it's possible to find sources that back up what is said in that article, whereas there appear to be none for this one. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and checkuser all around. Quite a few single purpose accounts seem to be voting. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google returns no results to vouch for this subject's notability. vıd ıoman 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sockpuppetry confirmed per User:Thatcher [55] TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW, blatant hoax, socks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper[edit]

Disputed prod - no improvement since first compiled in 2005, completely unsourced. PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's rationale for removing the prod on the article's talk page. I'll notify the appropriate projects, and perhaps someone will take interest. Xymmax (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—What is the time frame for this article? World War II, or any historical period? At present it doesn't say.—RJH (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and fix header. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix -- notify the relevant wikiprojects and they'll add 'em to their list of TBDs. It's a WP:SOFIXIT situtation, eh? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Apparently, the time frame is World War II, although you can't tell it from the article itself. It's a worthwhile topic, but nominator is correct... completely unsourced, as are the articles this takes you too. I never can figure out people who write detailed articles about things, but they're too fucking stupid to mention where they got their facts. Mandsford (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems as if there's something there should be sources for with some clarification on time frame as noted above. Refer to WP Japan and probably Military history, although I'm not too familiar with their scope. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources available to provided references for this article. search = Japanese "Metropolitan Fortification System" Jeepday (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, there seems to be no actual context, just a plain list, and with almost everything red-linked, it doesn't seem like there is much to say about the topic at all. Collectonian (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've been asked to come back. Having lived in Japan, I don't doubt the availability of English language sources. However I think the relevant projects may be aware of offline or native-language sources that we're not familiar with, that's why I'm leaning keep. It can be deleted if there is proof these sources don't exist. It's weak but I'm still leaning keep TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot imagine that a suitable search of Japanese sources would not find them, so its sourceable. Every installation of that sort in every country will have printed or online sources. Given that most of these are WWII, it'll be printed military history. some might even be in English. I see a number in OCLC from that period in English from US Intelligence sources -- Search by entering the place name. e.g. [56] DGG (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've also been asked to come back, but I still believe that the best answer is keep and remand to the relevant wikiprojects, as they have people with access to specialized, off-line and non-English sources. If no improvements have been made to the verification of this article within a suitable time frame -- I suggest at least a few months, given the likely nature of sources -- we can revisit the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article history I don't see any reason to believe an eventualistic approach is going to result in a transformation in the next few months, given there have been no improvement since 2005. PhilKnight (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree -- the relevant projects were just notified, got to give them a chance TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further, if you look at TC's link above, you'll notice that the same day the tags went on, a member of each project notified showed up to further tag and assess the article. I think further time is likely to be productive in this case. Xymmax (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of why specifically working with projects is a Good Thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.

Hot as Ice: The Blackout Tour[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Noatable.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No context. No sources. I can only assume that "her" refers to Britney Spears, but only because of some of the songs in the (unsourced) setlist. Eight other acts have released albums named Blacklist; seven more have release singles by that name. Due to the lack of context, Speedy delete CSD A1 B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Menta[edit]

Non notable martial artist, could not find any searches on Google besides the wikipedia article. Abstrakt (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason already mentioned above. Abstrakt (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. 18.
^ Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. 19 (2).
^ Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). Dissent Magazine. 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11.
^ "Professor Tony Coady". Retrieved 2008-01-30.
^ Coady, Tony (June 2004). Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World. Melbourne University Publishing. pp. XV. ISBN 0-52285049-9.
^ Selden, Mark (2002-09-09). "Terrorism Before and After 9-11". Znet. Retrieved 2008-01-30.
^ ^a ^b Falk, Richard. "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45

[1] Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. 18.

[2] Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. 19 (2).

[3] Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). Dissent Magazine. 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11.

[4] "Professor Tony Coady". Retrieved 2008-01-30.

[5] Coady, Tony (June 2004). Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World. Melbourne University Publishing. pp. XV. ISBN 0-52285049-9.

[6] Selden, Mark (2002-09-09). "Terrorism Before and After 9-11". Znet. Retrieved 2008-01-30.

[falk-7] Falk, Richard. "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]