Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 23 April 25 >

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 speedily deleted (G7) by Angusmclellan. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borgue+(stewartry)[edit]

Borgue+(stewartry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mistake while creating new page for Borgue (Stewartry). Have created Borgue disambiguation page. OldSpot61 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion using {{db-g7}} (WP:CSD#G7: Author requests deletion). No need for an AfD in cases like this. cab (talk) 23:57, 24 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. Ty 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Grecco[edit]

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

Somewhat lacking notability, needs references, and very few external links on this subject, which are npov. Basketball110 23:36, 24 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 with YFZ Ranch. Does not pass notability on its own. Dreadstar † 07:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rozita Swinton[edit]

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

this individual is not notable for anything other than making hoax phone calls. no relevance to where she deserves a page on Wikipedia. Naradasupreme (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge If there's a Wikipedia article growing about that polygamist compound in Texas, this article should go there. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints#April 2008 raid or YFZ Ranch#April 2008 raid per Ecoleetage. cab (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; consider merge later if and when her involvement is proven, but a merge at this point (unlike the lk to the nominated article) would give excessive weight to the appearance that her connection to the case is well established.
    --Jerzy•t 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BIO criteria with many newspaper sources (here) reporting on her story.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the incident is notable, the individual is not. Bastique demandez 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. (WP:BLP1E) Considering the fact that this is not a pleasing article, and that there are no inbound links, I don't think an article is warranted (not even a redirect, why would someone look for this name?). -- lucasbfr talk 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A month from now no one may remember or care about this person. If she ends up actually being the caller, perhaps she would warrant a line or two in the YFZ Ranch article. She certainly does not warrant her own article. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is an established principle of notability in WP that a decline in someone's importance cannot change them from notable to n-n*: Clifford Irving is notable as someone who for a time looked like he'd written the book of the decade, and we need to support the research or curiosity of those who read articles written before he was exposed as a monumental fraud. Those who want to convince us to delete should not be staking that claim on their predictions abt the future. If i am mistaken in understanding that coverage of her goes beyond a few jerkwater and/or scandal-sheet papers, count her mentions and share with us your assessment of which of them have the highest journalistic status. (There's an explicit claim of wide coverage, with a G-news search which i find yields
141 of about 322 for Rozita Swinton.
I seldom use G-news, but i'd have used quotes, and that still gives
135 of about 306 for Rozita-Swinton.
I note that these include the international English-language press, and the Denver Post, which is about neck-and-neck in the circulation race with its tabloid rival.)
* Lest i create confusion, this is not to say that a keep can't later be reversed, by cooler heads. It says that what they are reversing is the judgment about whether the subject achieved notability (either at the time of the keep or later), and not about whether the keep voters' predictions were accurate. If you see evidence that someone's argument is based on supposed future notability, or is mistaken about whether notability has already been achieved, drop a flag on that play, but don't counter it with your own predictions.
--Jerzy•t 06:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jerzy. If her involvement is not proven this is grounds for deletion of the article on the basis of patent non-notability, not keeping. KleenupKrew (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be clarified: Jerzy (as i think i am qualified to clarify) favored keep over merge bcz of the premature emphasis that the merge would give to the currently marginal (bcz doubtful) relevance to the article that she would be merged to. I chose not to repeat others' (for me so far persuasive) arguments) against Del, but i should think it would be obvious that my saying doubtful factuality is relevant to K vs M implies i think the current doubt is irrelevant to K-or-M vs Del. We don't have to believe either her or her accusers to think she's part of the story.
      --Jerzy•t 06:09       & 06:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints#April 2008 raid. Kleenupkrew is terribly wrong to think that whether her involvement gets "proven" has any bearing whatsoever on her notability. That said, we don't have much biographical information and it makes more sense to have a short mention in the section about the raid rather than a separate article. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I just read the deletion policy, and I cannot see any reason to delete this. The woman has been arrested for one call, and is being considered by authorities as the source of the call leading to the recent raid. All this is cited with references. I mean, seriously, how can you reasonably have a huge page about the raid and about FLDS without this info?? We dont have to include every person in the news, but if we do include a news story, we cannot reasonably exclude (only one) important party. Thinking her page should be deleted goes hand-in-hand with either a) thinking the whole story should be deleted, or b) censorship. The info is clearly germane and cited. ~~artman772000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.98 (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2008
    • That discussant is 208.54.15.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and wrote as a day-old newcomer, whose oeuvre unrelated to this dispute still consists of one edit. (IMO and FWIW, their edits to the nominated article do improve it -- including inserting information, with citation, similar to some i had IIRC removed, mostly for lack for citation.)
      --Jerzy•t 06:40, 29 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 without prejudice to continued discussion about a merger. This was an ill-considered renomination. Again, AfD is not the proper forum to discuss mergers. The WP:POVFORK argument would not seem to apply, because as of this writing the subject of the "celebrations" article is merely addressed in a brief section in the "reactions" article, which is in keeping with WP:SS. (That's not an opinion about the content at issue, including its merits, encyclopedicity or neutrality.) Sandstein (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have already nominated this article for deletion three weeks ago, the result was "not delete" and a recommendation to discuss merging the article. So why am I nominating the article for AfD again now? Because a new article has been created: International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and discussions happened on whether to merge/delete the celebrations article, no consensus was reached about that, and that's why a deletion review is needed here. The way I see it, the celebrations article is a content fork of the international reactions article, and arguably a POVFork, the celebrations article covers a minor event in the context of the reactions to the Sept 11 attacks, and does not include any significant information that the reactions article does not . Imad marie (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep if there is no consensus to merge, then I'm going to guess that there wouldn't be a consensus to delete. This isn't a very good article, all things considered, but it doesn't need to be deleted. I think that consensus has to be reached over the merger proposal in order to move forward. We can't just compel action with a smaller group of people on afd. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I don't mean to say that I don't think it should be merged. It should--that way it doesn't give undue weight to the negative reaction. but that isn't the function of afd. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability appears obvious, but can we do something with that title? Ecoleetage (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The thing is, this article is part of the sensitive Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and consensus is almost impossible to reach, and that's why a deletion review is necessary here. I acknowledge that the celebration is notable, however it doesn't deserve a separate article for it. Imad marie (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then shouldn't we be more worried, rather than less, about compelling action in the absence of consensus? Protonk (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is nearly impossible in this case, for political reasons, and that's why the review is needed here to decide whether it's really fair to have this topic as a stand-alone article. Imad marie (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's notable and referenced. Granted, it would probably be best to merge, but we don't delete just because consensus to do so can't be reached. - Koweja (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is a disgrace to the project. I've pointed out several severe problems and been told they've been fixed. Nothing has been fixed and the article is a racist polemic. There seems to be at least one loud-mouth editor who wants it to be this bad. 86.156.111.207 (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article provides many sources to different reliable and notable newspapers, it also gives an accurate insight to who celebrated such a horrible event.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comments in each and every debate on this topic. Now all the relevant mentions of these incidents are in a full Reactions article, this page simply represents needless duplication of material, and is a clear breach of WP:FORK. Please can anyone "voting" here actually compare the two articles before giving their opinions? The only justification for keeping it as a standalone page is to highlight a negative view of Palestinians based on the apparent actions of a small minority, which is obviously not a legitimate justification. Just because a couple of events happened and were reported on several years ago does not mean they need their own Wikipedia page - as I have pointed out before we do not have equivalent articles focusing on controversial Israeli comments or commemorations, for example in respect of the King David hotel bombing, or the Shehadeh killing, or Baruch Goldstein. And nor should we. --Nickhh (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there is nothing to merge, all the significant information is already covered in International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Celebration of some Palestinian protesters, and there is no need for a fork article.Imad marie (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious POV fork. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After a quick read through it this article clears up some common misconceptions about people in the Middle East and 9/11, but it still needs some editing. PÆonU (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify or explain the "clearing up misconceptions" point? And clarify whether you've read the other article which also includes all this information? --Nickhh (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that it clears up a common misconception (which, sadly, a lot of Americans have) that all of the Middle east was celebrating and having a good time after the 9/11 attacks. The article in question doesn't come off as anti-Palestinian to me, but I understand the issues and realize that not everybody in the Middle east is an evil terrorist so my opinion of whether or not it is. This article confirms that only a select few actually celebrated afterwards, but it's more complete than a small section in the big 9/11 article. It would clog up the reaction article to add this entire page into it, but without all that extra info I don't feel like there's enough to the story. Celebration of the 9/11 attacks is a big issue and need a big article. And also, there's nothing wrong with highlighting what SOME people did. The FLDS is molesting kids, but that doesn't mean all Mormons are child molesters. --PÆonU (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you see the article as not being anti-Palestinian, the article concentrates on the celebrations by a minority, and it ignores the fact that most of the Muslim/Arab leaders condemned the attacks. The way I see it, this article is a clear POVFork anti-Palestinian propaganda. Imad marie (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - see below, response to B.Wind. --Nickhh (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We shouldn't have the same article nominated by the same person over and over. If there is a problem with the new article... nominate it. Gdavid3 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Wikipedia is not the place to spread pro-Bush and pro-Abu Ghraib propaganda. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as nomination seems to be in bad faith by the editor who brought the first AfD less than a month ago. Discussions of potential merges are best done on the article talk page, not here... but proposer was "told" this by closing admin Sandstein upon the closing of the first AfD. Oh, Imad marie, a deletion review is done only to determine if the action or process of a deletion or AfD is done correctly... and not at WP:AfD. B.Wind (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - no, this nomination is not in bad faith and perhaps you should read up a bit on the history of what's going on here before making that accusation. The reasons for bringing a second AfD (which is clearly what this is rather than a formal deletion review, even if those words are used a bit loosely above) are clearly explained by the nominator. Nor is there any attempt to hide the fact that this is a second nomination. It has been difficult to work out the best procedure for what to do here, because everything has happened back-to-front (ie the "fork" article has existed for a long time, and the wider and more balanced article has only just been created and now expanded). This has led to several merge or delete processes, which have taken place at different points in the development of the bigger "Reactions .." article. Not to mention different advice from different people - eg here the nominator was advised to go for AfD, if all the relevant material had already been merged (which it has been, since Sandstein's original closing comments). --Nickhh (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, no merge bad faith nomination. Imad nominated the article for an Afd 19 days earlier, and it was closed as "keep", and he now nominates it again! Clearly this is an example of bad faith. There also is not consensus at this time for a merge. Yahel Guhan 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A second AfD, within 3 weeks of the failed first one, nominated by the same person, who has been advised on proper procedure by admins but ignores that advice, gives rise to legitimate claims of bad faith. That aside, the article is well referenced, and the events themselves easily meet our notability guidelines. Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, about bad faith accusations: No, this is not a bad faith nomination. In my opening comment I made it very clear that I already nominated this article for deletion before, and I made it very clear why I am nominating the article again now. Now with the "reactions" article, we have nothing to merge, all significant information is already covered, in a balanced way. I would remind here that most of the voters in the first AfD supported the idea that there was no need for a fork article. Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks now that broader article exists. The information is notable and verifiable so should not be deleted - it's just in the wrong place. If the broader article had existed first, there would have been (IMO) strong consensus to merge this article into the broader article earlier. The fact that the broader article was created later should not alter the appropriate action. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep merge discussions belong elsewhere. So do problems with POV. DGG (talk) 23:33, 29 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. As pointed out by DGG, this is a vanity article, and there is no meaningful content in the history to preserve. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications by Robert Cialdini[edit]

List of publications by Robert Cialdini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am not sure which policy to quote, but I am quite sure that Wikipedia is not the place for the detailed list of publication of some academic... Goochelaar (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (See below.) If a policy is needed, I'm going with WP:IINFO. Robert Cialdini may be notable, but this extensive list belongs neither in his article nor as an article of its own. Deor (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Lists, i.e. discriminate, organized, and verifiable. Even if we put it on his own article, we would merge and redirect there without deleting per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Wikipedia has numerous lists of individual author's publications Dbiel (Talk) 03:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the two user's above, this information is verifiable and potentially useful to people wishing to know more about this man.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While "it is useful" is known not to be a good reason to keep an article, I believe than anybody interested in somebody's complete list of publications may well refer to specialised web pages (for instance, the personal page of the author, or bibliographical sites), which are, or should be, linked in the main article. As it is, this article looks useful like a timetable or a telephone guide: i.e., it might indeed be useful, but not encyclopedic. Goochelaar (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, Deor and remark on non-encyclopedic nature of such list. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize in advance for a complicated !vote.
It looks like someone with a user name identical to that of the webmaster of Cialdini’s web site[1] simply copied Cialdini’s CV into the main article last November 30, causing the article to become too bloated. As a result, another editor chose to move the list of publications into a new article rather than remove information that is far too detailed for Wikipedia. I propose the following:
1. Revert the Robert Cialdini article to the version before the CV was copied into the article.
2. Redirect the List of Publications article to the main Cialdini article. The main article already had reasonable list of representative publications, so a merge is not necessary.
3. Finally, incorporate good faith edits made since last November and include an external link to his CV for anyone who wants this level of detail.
If there is consensus to do the above, I am willing to do the work.
FreeKresge (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your solution is one I can live with. Deor (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be willing to accept the compromise if it is a redirect without deletion as it is a legitimate search term and we would also keep editors' contributions public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go with FreeKresge's Suggestion This compromise appears to be the best course of action. --SharkfaceT/C 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like FreeKresge's proposal, and thank him for it and for his willingness to implement it! Goochelaar (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...but stand my original opinion that an article like this has no place in WP. Goochelaar (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On second thought, delete is a better option here, per DGG's comments. Nsk92 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as absurd overemphasis. I see no reason whatever to redirect. There is a place for these lists, and they are the websites of individuals, except for the very most famous at the level of Darwin--and of course people whose notability is their individual publications, such as literary and musical authors. We do not need to duplicate it. I would like to send a strong message that full lists of scientific papers is vanity. I don't lightly use the word, but these aren't all scientific papers -- this is an undifferentiated list including non-peer-reviewed popular articles, chapters in collected works, and even 1-p long book reviews of other peoples books. We have already included the most important, as judged by some reasonable standard. DGG (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per DGG. I do not support the suggested redirect, as it is an unlikely search term and an external link to the online CV seems adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the things wikipedia is not is a bibliographic database. Part of the point of having an article on an academic here is to condense the (generally long) publication list down to a smaller list of particularly notable works and lines of research. This doesn't do that, and I don't see what encyclopedic purpose it does serve. In particular, do not merge and do not do the equivalent of merging by reverting the biography to a point at which it included all this cruft. The main article on this academic should list only a few selected publications, or even better describe them rather than listing them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up I went ahead and removed CV related material from the Robert Cialdini article, restored the much shorter list of publications that was originally in that article, and added an external link to Cialdini’s CV. I agree with David Eppstein that a description of the selected publications would be better than a list. However, I am no longer in academia and do not have good access to an academic library (the nearest one is about an hour away from where I live).
There appears to be some disagreement about whether to redirect the List of Publications article or to delete it entirely, so I will leave that up to the closing admin. I personally fall in the “redirects are cheap” camp, but I have no strong opinions either way and doubt that it will be a common search term.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly what is there valuable in the contribution history? DGG (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should any of those who edited the article ever run for adminship, it is beneficial for those of us who are not admins and cannot see deleted contribs to be able to get as full a picture as possible of their contribution history. Because we can redirect this page to Robert Cialdini, I see no harm in doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly has a complex history: there are three editors, one (already an admin) who split it from Robert Cialdini, one who tagged it for AfD and one who added a couple of external links. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Roi, what you say about preserving histories could be said for any and all articles do be deleted. So, we should never delete anything, just in case? Goochelaar (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should delete hoaxes, copy vios, and libel. But when it is not a hoax, copy vio, or libel and has a redirect location, instead of deletion, we should redirect. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In view of above arguments I change to Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connect2edmonton[edit]

Connect2edmonton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unable to find any independent reliable sources that would help establish notability; the article as written does not even establish it and thus would theoretically qualify for speedy deletion. A google search turns up a decent number of results, but most of them are forum posts or blog posts and thus not reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 22:32, 24 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, Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 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 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reddy Surnames[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, nor is it a surnames dictionary. Corvus cornixtalk 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many Indian castes seem to be jumping on this listcruft bandwagon. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:26, 24 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 WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus discusses that the subject is notable through significant indepdendent coverage from reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsford Traditional Secondary School[edit]

Abbotsford Traditional Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small town school, little to support notability Oo7565 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep high schools get articles. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • High schools must demonstrate notability to get articles. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No claims of notability. Merge into School District 34 Abbotsford. Corvus cornixtalk 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable high school. This school was chosen to trial an innovative scheme to rent laptops to the students. TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the one to one laptop program has resulted in the school receiving significant independent coverage. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into School District 34 Abbotsford I don't believe the sources provided are notable and a news search turns up only one article about a student who goes to that school winning some photo contest, no mention of laptop program. As such, I think it fails the WP:SCHOOLS notability criteria.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from being a high school (generally notable as such), it has those sources. Who cares if the sources are notable; the thing is that they're reliable sources, and therefore valid and useable. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable per TerriersFan.--Sting au Buzz Me... 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Eóin and two reliable, independent sources that directly discuss the school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - High schools are inheritantly notable if they have received coverage, as with the laptop program discussed above. Gdavid3 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reason given above. this is one of a string of careless nominations for afd & prod, apparently made without attention to either the need to look for sources or the precedents at AfD. DGG (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, school is notable and has received coverage through multiple non-trivial sources as such. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:03, 27 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 23:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten by Them[edit]

Beaten by Them (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Article is written by a usercalled "logicpole", which just so happens to be the name of their production company (Do google) so "conflict of interest" comes in as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and why can't autobiographers avoid writing blatant ads? Vanity doesn't have to sound vain. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And they make it so obvious too. Whenever I look through the CoI list I always go for the ones where the username is the same as the article name first.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and also vanispamcruftisement. Edison (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet any of the WP:BAND notability criteria, I cannot find any reliable news sources reporting about them, they haven't won any awards as far as i know, and their band label doesn't appear to be notable either.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the excellent reasons given above. Qworty (talk) 09:48, 26 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. Fram (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90:00 Magazine[edit]

90:00 Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete references all point to their own website. Maybe one day they'll be mentioned somewhere else. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
prod'ed. Usually it's better to do that first. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. BlueValour (talk) 02:05, 25 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. Following the withdrawal of the nomination there was unanimity that the subject meets notability requirements. As a post-AFD editorial matter the references need to be moved inline to assist verification and I shall amend the tag accordingly. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryanston Pictures[edit]

Delete No evidence that the company was a notable production entity Ecoleetage (talk) 21:27, 24 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. Black Kite 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foodie tours[edit]

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

Neologism. There appear to be a number of commercial sites that use the term [2] however WP:DICT Deadly∀ssassin 21:04, 24 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 as follows: (and sorry for the length, this one was not easy) If we count !votes, there is not a clear consensus to keep or delete.

But we don't count votes, we evaluate the notability and other factors of the subject as made in the keep and delete arguments presented.

  • The main keep arguments advanced by several are that this director has transferrable notability from having directed The Hottie and the Nottie which is notable for being viewed as so dreadful by many that it received extensive coverage, and for having been a Paris Hilton vehicle. Almost all the keeps advance this argument. FreeKresge advances the argument that notability of this BLP is also conferred by the filmmakermagazine.com articles.
  • The primary delete arguments advanced are that the film's notability does not necessarily transfer directly to the director (this argument was also advanced in deletion arguments of other film industry folk, such as Don Murphy), that the article was initially written by the subject, that there has been significant addition of material that is attack in nature, which we have not always rapidly kept out of the article, doing harm to the subject, that the material in the article is not well sourced (and that sources do not exist), and that in general, the subject does not pass the WP:BIO for entertainers threshold.

On review there is not an overwhelming argument here that outweighs all the rest. Some points:

  • It's clearly established that notability is not directly transferrable. The film is marginally notable (it gets much of its notability from Ms. Hilton, truth be told) and thus doesn't have much (I tend to use an informal 10% transferrence) spare notability to transfer to the director.
  • The filmmakermagazine.com articles are reviews/summaries of the events of the year, and they are not primarily biographies of this subject, who gets a few paragraphs of mention in passing, and who is not given a full biographical treatment in them. We have in the past viewed that mere mention of someone in an article does not convey a large amount of notability. Further, the source website itself is not exactly a first tier source for the industry, as I understand it, the way that say, Variety is.
  • The article being originally written by the subject is not prima facie a reason to delete, as long as our conflict of interest policy is followed. It's certainly not evidence of a wide interest in maintaining the article to a high standard, though.
  • In reviewing the "Creative professionals" section of WP:BIO for entertainers, the subject fails every test.... (reproduced in italics for reference, with explanation after)
    • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. No such evidence offered. This person is early in their career.
    • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No significant new concepts on offer (making a widely viewed as remarkably bad movie with limited box office is, regrettably, not a "new" concept!).
    • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No such body of work yet exists, and no such biography or book has been produced, nor is Tom a subject of multiple articles (mention in passing does not count)
    • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Not yet. (again, a stinker isn't a monument... too many of those!)

On balance, evaluating all of the sources of notability, and being extremely charitable in doing so, the subject is very very marginally notable. In view of the poor sourcing of the article, the unlikeliness of better sources appearing in future, absent some other activity, and the tendency of the article to carry attack material for periods of time, and in view of our mandate to do no harm, and that having no article at all is better than having an article that cannot be improved, and the emerging consensus that we should delete marginal notability BLPs absent a clear and compelling consensus to keep, this is a delete. There may be some slight material that can be smerged to the various film articles (contact me for a copy of the deleted article) and the deletion is without prejudice (in view of the fast moving nature of the film industry, in which Tom Putnam may well do something highly significant, or be biographically profiled in future) to a future recreation if there is a significant increase in notability and in independent sources. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Putnam[edit]

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

This page has had recurring unverifiable unreferenced negative and libelous information added about the subject who is a living person - for example see entry 21:05 on 16 July 2007 from IP address 216.101.81.4 Shibano100 (talk)

  • Unverifiable info can be easily removed without an AfD discussion ever coming into play. Either way, I'm leaning towards weak delete right now, becuase I don't see any notability for this person – no reliable sources, no notable works, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Hottie and the Nottie makes him notable, whether or not the other works do. Corvus cornixtalk 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, the movie he directed makes him notable.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if being the director of the "worst film of all time" (The Hottie and the Nottie) is what makes him notable than it needs to be referenced in the article, sourced to a reliable 3rd party and, the article kept. If his notability can not be presented in the body of the article (without turning it into an "attack page") than the article needs to be deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I do not think that directing The Hottie and the Nottie alone makes him notable, but the Filmmaker Magazine links probably push him across the notability line, barely. I am not thrilled with the fact that the article was created by User:Tomputnam, but I do not think that is a reason for deletion in this case. If the insertion of libel and unsourced negative information is a problem, then protection is a better solution than deletion.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Those who believe that directing a poorly received film is a notability criterion can look at the IMDb’s bottom 100.
  • Delete I originally found this page and thought it was worthy of deletion through the imdb entry for the film that some of the users above have commented on being the reason to keep the page. The source for the Worst Film of All-Time ranking is the imdb voting, and if you look on the imdb page for The Hottie and the Nottie and read the comments you will see that many more people have voted on the film than actually saw it and that the Worst Film ranking is in doubt so I think this entry, which is the sole reason this person would be notable, is not credible. I also agree that the creation of the page by user:tomputnam is dubious as well.--shibano100 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment is based on the notability of the film, not on its perceived awfulness. It starred Paris Hilton, thus the film, whether it wins a Razzie or an Oscar, is notable, therefore the film's director is notable. Corvus cornixtalk 20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Notability is not inherited, and even if it were, it is most certainly not transitive. If a film is notable only for the inclusion of a star then we can only make a very week case for the notability of the director of that film independent from its star. This guy has to be notable on his own. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree that the hottie and the nottie makes this guy notable. For one thing, the only two attributes making that movie marginally notable are Paris Hilton and the ignominious nature of its release. WP:BIO for entertainers has a threshold this guy doesn't meet. Also, the Hottie and the Nottie can hardly be called a feature film, as it only showed on 111 screens domestically. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the previous two postings that a poorly-received film that hardly anyone saw does not make him notable. Also none of the other information is verified and appears to have been posted by Tom Puttnam himself (or someone claiming to be him). Additionally, in checking the history of the page there have been some unverifiable and obviously intentionally negative information posted which would lead me to believe that, if it wasn't created by the subject, this may have been created as an attack page. JDijul (talk) 6:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as the person is evidently notable as a film director/producer. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because someone has directed a film doesn't make them notable. This person does not appear to meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability. (rip n pull) (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rip N Pull (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep. Director of dreadful film which received extensive independent press coverage. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not believe this person is notable enough to be a Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfourriel (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 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 WP:HEY (non-admin closure. The only delete preferences expressed were PERNOM and "no citations". The subject has multiple mentions in independent reliable sources and enough of a claim for notability to make the keep preferences expressed here credible. Skomorokh 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Solomon[edit]

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

Chief constable of a seaside town in England not really notable enough for an encyclopedia. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Per nom. Non-notable constable and no citations to back him up, either. Alternatively, we could also speedily delete the article for a lack of notabilily assertion (besides being bludgeoned to death), but then I suppose since we're already at AFD, there'd not be much point. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he's notable based on the claim in the last sentence, that he was the first constable in the UK to be murdered in his own office. (Note- citations have been added since it was tagged for AfD.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, sources have been added and I think notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, I'm still not convinced that we should have collections of articles of people who were the first/only person of a certain profession ever to have done something or other of which there is very little else to say, but anyhow. Completely contradicting myself on that point ;), perhaps he was the first Jewish chief constable in Britain? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that "chief constable" is a British term, equivalent to "police chief" in the United States. I don't know how large the Brighton police force was in his time. though. --Eastmain (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources, as well as being the first Jewish chief constable, and being murdered in his own police station.--BelovedFreak 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We are not 100% certain he was the first Jewish chief constable, that was just my theory ;) I think it probable he was though. I'm not sure where one would find a complete list of all chief constables for all the counties, boroughs, metropolitan areas etc. in England and Wales and how you could be sure who was Jewish, unless they had an an obviously Jewish name. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notably is show due to coverage in reliable news sources.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:41, 25 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 at this time. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grind Mode[edit]

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

Non-notable hip hop group, fails WP:MUSIC per [3] and [4]. The latter was the only possibly relevant/reliable source that identifies the subject. There simply isn't enough coverage yet to meet notability guidelines. [5] is google news hits. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Maybe in a few years, huh? Renee (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Lack of outside sources, no albums, etc. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:27, 30 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. I find the arguments that all tertiary colleges are notable persuasive; the suggestion to merge to University of Pune does not seem feasible, as the institution appears administratively separate. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College of Pharmacy (Pune)[edit]

College of Pharmacy (Pune) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete This obscure college in rural India only started a year ago and not produced any notable academic or pharmaceutical achievements. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. First AfD of this Article: closed delete 4 days ago. Pastordavid (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply- So it was recreated. Then we can simply speedy G4 it. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, should have been clearer. The content is slightly expanded by a sentence or two from the version that was deleted, including a couple of new sources. CSD G4 is only for the recreation of identical content. Pastordavid (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought G4 was for substantially identical (which to me means adding a sentence or two would still meet G4, although the new sources would need to be looked at to verify the similarities. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see this note from the admin who closed the earlier AfD, though in context he does mean main space :-) TerriersFan (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a tertiary, approved, degree awarding institution and by long custom these are regarded as notable. Though a stub it meets policy requirements. The statement by the nominator that it is an 'obscure college in rural India' sounds like systemic bias to me and underplays that Pune is rapidly becoming a major technological centre. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see http://www.pci.nic.in/institute_cities/degree/Maharashtra.htm for a list of pharmacy schools in the state of Maharashtra approved by the Pharmacy Council of India. I couldn't find a listing for this school, but perhaps I was looking in the wrong place. --Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is because the degrees it awards are University of Pune degrees and not degrees in its own name. This is a similar arrangement to that which exists at many tertiary colleges in the UK; for example Edge Hill University for a number of years awarded University of Liverpool degrees. TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our long-standing precedent that ALL tertiary degree-conferring institutions can be shown to be notable, obviating the lack of necessity for deletion discussions for same. Previous deletion was contested via a less-formal approach than DRV; through discussion by two admin wikipedians with the deleting admin, and the userfied version was slightly improved (although improvement was not required in order to be kept -- the old version was fine) and then it was restored to mainspace per that discussion. The notion that this is a CSD#A4 is therefore fallacious. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I closed the original AFD as "delete", this version seems better. No opinion really, but inclined to suggest keep. Neıl ☎ 07:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with University of Pune article... in particular I'd say under Affiliations or Schools,Centres and Departments. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this institution was in the USA or the UK nobody would even thought about nominating it for deletion. Also I'm not quite sure what the nominator means by "rural" - Pune is larger than any city in the USA except for New York, and any city in the UK apart from London. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The college itself is not in the city of Pune, but (according to the article} in the "outskirts." Ecoleetage (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to reply Romford is in the outskirts of Greater London but I am not sure that the residents would take kindly to being described as living in 'rural Britain'. Narhe, the district of Pune concerned, also contains the Kashibai Navale Medical College and Hospital, the Sinhgad Institute of Management Computer Application, the Sinhgad Institute of Pharmacy, the Dnyanganga College of Engineering and Research etc. TerriersFan (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Pune article, both articles are very short. The College does not grant the degree, which blows the inherent notibility argument. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this were actually a degree-granting university, there would be no question but that it should be kept. But as an appendage of the University of Pune, I'm not sure if it should stay. Some universities have articles for their colleges, but many do not. In particular, most universities have only the most notable of their colleges split into their own articles; the rest are covered in the main university page. Might I suggest granting more time before closing this AfD, or even relisting it? I'd like to see these issues addressed, because the stub nature of the article is not enough to determine if the college is that notable to merit its own article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a new article at Abhinav Education Society, or failing that keep the article. Merging to University of Pune would be a weak third choice, but it seems to be rather a distinct entity. Also, keeping in mind the directive to combat systemic bias, keeping the article would be a step in the right direction. I propose a merger mainly to avoid articles that seem to have little future outside of stubdom, but I'm not opposed to having this as its own article (if the support and sources are there). CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:00, 29 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Alexander[edit]

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

article fails WP:bio, needs more References Oo7565 (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As is, non-notable, no secondary sources.Renee (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-Notable. --ShadowXOR (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenothing is being asserted ere whichseems to me to be notable. DGG (talk) 23:55, 26 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 20:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoSort[edit]

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

Speedy deleted 3x as failing to assert notability, deleted by prod once for failure to meet the threshold of WP:CORP. Latest recreation still does not make notability clear, and is very spammy. Pastordavid (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The article cites a few well-known tech journals in its external links section. I would recommend a good rewrite rather than a speedy delete. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Seems like a PR piece.Renee (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:AB => WP:COI. We don't take autobiographies because they're too tainted. Also author can't decide whether to discuss his company proper or its products. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands now. Would suggest that an article could be written about Innovative Routines International (IRI), Inc. if reliable sources are used and it can avoid looking like self promotion. Perhaps using other "good" business articles as templates. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:43, 25 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. I am concerned here about the "unsourced" argument, which brings up a verifiability problem. What saves this is Neier's source which does appear to ease some of these concerns, (with the caveat that I cannot read it as it's in Japanese). Further work may be needed on this article, or it may be renominated at some point in the future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Flower[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a "band" made up of three or more videogame characters; fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. If there's anything of substance here, it should be merged into Pikmin. Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Three charted singles on the Oricon charts = clears WP:MUSIC easily. (Those sales figures are a bit suspicious, though - am tagging as such.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though if someone else could pull citations from Oricon, that'd be good. I fail at naviagiting that site. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Wow, video game characters charted three singles? I would say that's probably notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless some secondary sources can be provided. Renee (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete typically musicians are credited, not fictional characters. Since the pretense of an artificial universe is unencyclopedic, I would say keep on condition of making it "real-life". But having no references pathetically fails WP:MUSIC! Seriously, the figures which happen all to be almost exactly 100,000 sold are definitely fabricated. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Pikmin unless real world stuff can be shown (in a way similar to the article on Gorillaz) which would make the band more notable on their own away from the source material. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The band name was Strawberry Flower, and their songs charted. [6] is one example (#28) for the week. An alias for people singing in the guise of computer game characters is not any different than an alias for people singing in the guise of any other fictional character (The Rainbow Connection or P. D. Q. Bach, for example). Neier (talk) 15:14, 25 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat and Plumb[edit]

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

Company formed in 2004, has 30 employees and 200 users of its online forum over the past three months. All links are to the company or a press release. Adminstrator DGG declined my speedy, in case you ask why I didn't try that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Complete PR. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In between SPEEDY and AfD is PROD. I prod'ed it per WP:CORP. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly- PROD is for deletions that don't need discussion. The idea is that you PROD an article, and if the PROD is contested, you take it here (or come straight here if it would be controversial). I'm removing the PROD- with PRODs, the article is deleted after five days, by which time this AfD will be closed anyway. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment some of the language is definitely spammy. I'm going there now to try and fix that but, unless some decent 3rd party sources can be found I'm saying delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see no reason to keep this, but it wasnt a speedy. DGG (talk) 23:49, 29 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Area Medical[edit]

Remote Area Medical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization; had its 15 minutes of fame when CBS covered it once. Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - OrangeMike nominated this article for Speedy Delete once before and consensus was to keep it. Once an article has been nominated for deletion and the consensus is NO, shouldn't that be the end of the story? Does OrangeMike have something against the subject matter here? --AStanhope (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - When an editor believes an article is about non-notable subject matter, the procedure is as follows: if they believe it is clearly non-notable, then a "speedy" nomination is made. If other editors (other than the article's author) disagree, they will remove the "speedy tag" and explain why. If an editor (the same or another) is still unconvinced, they may "prod" the article, explaining their reasoning; but ANY editor can remove the "prod" tag (even the author of the article) within a few days. If a prod tag is removed, then any editor unconvinced of the suitability of the article may make an Article for Deletion nomination, where all parties may discuss the question. I was, and remain, unconvinced that this group is any more notable than many tens of thousands of small charities across the planet who never happened to get on a TV show. The promotional/hagiographic tone of the article has also led me to suspect a possible conflict of interest here; but I have no evidence, and have never mentioned it until my own motivations were questioned, preferring to assume good faith instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I assume that you are talking about me with regards to a conflict of interest. No - no conflict of interest here. I saw the 60 Minutes piece on the organization and was fascinated in the organization. I wanted to find out more and, as is usually my habit, the Wikipedia was the first place I looked for additional info. I was disappointed to find that there was information whatsoever about the organization on the Wikipedia. For that reason, I started the article we find on the Wikipedia about the subject today. It's just a stub - a stake in the ground - but many/most articles here start that way. Over time people will add to it and expand it. Follow the link to watch the 60 Minutes episode on the organization. I think you'll agree that the organization is both fascinating and quite special. --AStanhope (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Orangemike, I understand your suspicions of conflict of interest (though that’s not the case with me, either), but what have you got against this article? You already nominated it for a speedy deletion and some of us felt it was worth keeping, so why keep trying? Are you trying to save bandwidth or something? I hope that doesn’t come across as being smart because I’m genuinely curious. --Flash176 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? I thought I was clear above. I still don't think it's notable; simple as that. One of my duties as an admin is to keep an article out for non-notable subjects. It's not my idea of fun; fun involves watching my little girl dance at a feis, or cuddling with my sweetie. It's just that there are lots of organizations more deserving of articles, and this one is not up to our standards as I understand them (fallible human that I am). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. Thanks for clarifying. --Flash176 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, needs secondary sources. Renee (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remarkable philanthropic organization - was the subject of a 60 Minutes episode. Article obviously needs fleshing out, hence its status as a stub. --AStanhope (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Orangemike has already brought this up once and the article did not meet the criteria for deletion. As AStanhope said, this article does need fleshing out, but I feel there is no good reason to delete it and frankly don't see the problem in keeping it.--Flash176 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has been covered in Canada, if coverage in multiple countries is the issue. The founder has been asked to testify before Congress. Again, of course it needs to be expanded, but are all stubs to be deleted now? Bltpdx (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is asserted and 1 Ref keeps it verifyable, so I dont see a problem with a stub sitting around till it gets brought up to Article status. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • clarify - notability is to be not only asserted, but demonstrated, in order for an article to meet our standards in an AfD discussion. Notability has been asserted, but not (in my opinion) demonstrated. A single appearance on a TV show in a single country is a frail reed to lean upon. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your correct it is 'a frail reed', but then simply because it is not well known does not mean it is not encyclopedic to have such an entry. Standards for stubs such as this, are not as high as you might want the bar to be. I believe that a stub asserting notability is enough, but if you feel it is not, I am sure some of the multitude of GHits, GNewsHits or GBookHits will assist to demonstrate it, as you require. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CBS covering it in a significant way was sufficient for notability DGG (talk) 23:50, 29 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. We are not deleting the word, merely the Wikipedia article, which does not demonstrate the notability (or even use) of the word.--Kubigula (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garbism[edit]

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

Transwiki candidate, dictionary definition only with no encyclopedic information. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism. Google, JSTOR, and Ebsco know nothing of it; why I bothered searching them is beyond me, considering that the article all but says outright that this term was made up in a sociocultural psychology class sometime this semester. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I also think [Wiktionary] wouldn't want it, but I'm not too familiar with those criteria, so I could easily be wrong. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per comments above.Renee (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No g-scholar hits and one unrelated g-books hit = hoax. 130.101.168.220 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above, having done my own Google search and come up empty. I took the liberty of removing a speedy tag since, AFAIK, neologisms/protologisms aren't suitable for speedy deletion, but I think this process will suffice to dispose of any questions. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This word is applicable in academic settings, as a framework for discussing a common yet often overlooked form of prejudice. To delete this word would be to deny the existence of the prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.19.57 (talk) 02:56, 30 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 WP:SNOW. While there are two people who disagree the majority of their edits are just this page. Byond being quite obviously not notable. Its also possibly a conflict of interest. Myspace or some other social networking site would be better to promote their team. -Djsasso (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Psyducks[edit]

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

The team claims to be professional but gets four Google hits, and seems to have existed for only a year. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notability whatsoever. Zenlax T C S 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Psyducks are not professional. Being a fan of the Psyducks I would be the first to tell you that the Psyducks are relevant and deserve to have a home on Wikipedia. Sure they are not notable everywhere, but in the Buffalo area, they are known too many. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that it was not required that something be globally known. The Mighty Psyducks are very much like a small british soccer club and I know many of them have wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forskid (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually amateur British soccer clubs mostly don't have articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please include in this deletetion request Patrick Thompson (hockey) who is notable only for playing in this team. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love Wikipedia and am the first one to defend it, saying how closely monitored it is and that you can trust it for that reason exactly. I would not tell you that this article should be on Wikipedia if I didn't believe it with my whole heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forskid (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Gary, this is a team, not a single athlete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forskid (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 April 2008

    • I know, but I can't find the policy for teams for some reason (but I know that it mentions that the professional level must be reached, which is similar to WP:ATHLETE. Gary King (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources.Renee (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What defines a professional sports team? Merriam Webster defines it as a team or squad within an organized league with professional caliber players and a salary contract to binding players to there team. All of these are met by the GISHL and The Mighty Psyducks and they are only considered semi-pro. How dare you even question to presuppose that the Psyducks are no real team. If you saw the blood, sweat, and tears by the Mighty Psyducks you might realize that the Ducks are real. They even have jerseys. But because you have not heard of them they must not be real? NO. They are very real and by making this wikipedia article The Psyducks were merely trying to broaden there fanbase, popularity, and maybe help the GISHL out a little. MPaasch (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC) — MPaasch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"salary contract to binding players" Really? Their players have salaries? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really there is a salary for all players of the GISHL and a $10.00 dollar/per game salary was made the minimum wage as of June 27th, 2007 by the Grand Island Street Hockey League Players Association. Most funding for players is provided by various sponsors of teams and Team owners. The largest team sponsor is 84 Lumber, the official sponsor of The Mighty Psyducks. --MPaasch (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— MPaasch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - note that MPaasch has now created an article about himself, Mike Paasch. I've db-speedied. Corvus cornixtalk 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe players are now technically considered semi-professional, and the club now professional. This means that they will probably be forced to leave the GISHL, because it is strictly amateur--Forskid (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)B. DeNormand[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are forthcoming as to their notability. Only MySpace and gamebattles.com every heard of them. Nobody even heard of the "Grand Island Street Hockey League" except Wikipedia. Corvus cornixtalk 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources; fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Both: They even have jerseys? Errr ... every Little League town team in the country has jerseys. *I* have several hockey jerseys hanging in my closet. While I'm unsure as to the utility of "broadening their fanbase" (what, someone from Detroit's going to take in a game?), I'm sure that Myspace is sufficient to their needs. Wikipedia, however, requires reliable sources and notability, and this band of players in a beer league have neither.  RGTraynor  00:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete both players and team unless notability and references can be included. Note that there is a second article, now a redirect about Mr Paasch Mike paasch.
  • Delete — not at all notable (even though the team went from being "not professional" to "professional" in only two hours). ... discospinster talk 01:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete not only do they fail notability but "The Psyducks were merely trying to broaden there fanbase, popularity," definitely says they are using the article as "advertising" and therefore makes it spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only two editors opposed to this deletion are now contradicting each other, and one has been blocked for vandalism. Are we ready for a snowball delete yet? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:54, 25 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racial identity disorder[edit]

Racial identity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cannot locate any psychological/psychiatric source for this disorder; instead, all the Ghits I could locate point to this being a slang term, rather than an actual diagnosable disorder. I am nominating for deletion per WP:RS and WP:OR. nneonneo talk 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agreed; a Google search for the exact string only brings up a few links, none of which appear to be from credible sources. Paradoxsociety (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't get a single hit on Google news, nor could I get a single hit on a university library keyword database. I think it's complete OR. Renee (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JSTOR and EbscoHost turn up nothing (though Renee's search probably covered those); if someone has a DSM-IV handy we can wrap this up conclusively. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it were real, it wouldn't be a disorder. Hence it's a joke. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 10 ghits including the Wiki article. Although, there may be a "disorder" out there which matches the parameters it obviously isn't notable under this name. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In case anyone had any lingering doubts: no, there's no mention of it in the DSM-IV (at least under this name, as Jasynnash2 rightly points out). AnturiaethwrTalk 18:12, 25 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. Quasirandom's argument carries the day.--Kubigula (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Zebra[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book with 88 google hits. Damiens.rf 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:Novels criteria. Zenlax T C S 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insignificant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: To my surprise, those 88 g-hits includes some useful ones, including notice from USA Today. This seems to squeek by WP:BK with a free-throw in the last second. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The author is wiki-Notable... The novel was reviewed by USA Today and a few other newspapers... and the novel was promoted by notable coach Bob Knight. Frog47 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quasirandom's articles highlighted above show multiple coverage, so it meets the first criteria of WP:Novels. Additionally, Frog47's points are valid in that this is the first work by an otherwise already notable author. Gdavid3 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is probably safe to say that most self-published books don't fall under the umbrella of Wikipedia notability, but this is surely an exception to such a rule. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:05, 27 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 by SkierRMH. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless (Collin Raye album)[edit]

Fearless (Collin Raye album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notabiilty. Yes, Collin Raye is notable, but this album doesn't appear to be notable - no chart singles, red linked label, no reviews, etc. (Yes, I do like Collin Raye a great deal, but he needs to stop putting out so many *(@#$ non-notable albums.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do concede that it fails WP:N in terms of garnering critical reviews. Amazon has four reviews. Mainly I just don't see the harm in uniformly filling out the entire discography of a notable musician. That's might be against some policy. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not. Albums only warrant separate pages when there's enough to say about them. This was just an indie album that went by without leaving even a blip on the radar. Also, Amazon reviews don't count. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Collin Raye. Current article about Raye barely mentions the existence of Fearless, but most of the previous Raye albums have a definite presence in the article. While Raye is notable, the company that released Fearless doesn't seem so. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:53, 25 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 with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Songs (Collin Raye album)[edit]

Love Songs (Collin Raye album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable compilation album; no third party reviews, no new songs, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. I'm sure there might be a reference somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:58, 29 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) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And merge into Collin Raye site.Renee (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The preceding album is notable for having singles, following is also notable, so he must be popular. At the very least, this article maintains continuity when clicking along his discography. And what's the cost of having it here? Potatoswatter (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is only a stub and is missing the needed references, but they do exist. The article just needs to be expanded. Dbiel (Talk) 03:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and keep. Unlike Fearless, this was released in the US on a major label (Epic Records). Article needs some fleshing out to give detail to the importance of the album to Raye's career. It can use additional citations as well.147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep charted on a major Billboard chart released on a major label, just needs references. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:06, 26 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merrr[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not dictionary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be a slang definition, and frankly, that's what Urban Dictionary is for. Send it over there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essayist original thought on the definition of this word. Wikipedia is neither Wiktionary nor Urban Dictionary. WilliamH (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and CSD tagged as such. Please don't use AfD as a first resort. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete? Which criteria? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used "no content", prolly should've done "nonsense". Seriously, it just rambles without saying anything. Also there's no way a prod would be contested. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not nonsense. So "nonsense" is not applied here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It differs from a speech disfluency such as "argh" or "blah" in that merrr is a word used deliberately to represent other words, rather than as an accidental or temporary interjection into speech.

Author is coining new words in order to talk about nonsense. In any case, it's probably not a bad idea to just bring the article to the attention of an admin, some way or another, and avoid wasting several people's time in AfD. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, also after checking your contribution, you have not enough positive contribution, no DYK, no article etc. So don't teach other about "time waste". Try to build some good articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that I'm not a positive contributor, and that this debate is not a waste of time -- you weren't/aren't sure whether the article would actually be saved in the end. I wasn't copping an attitude before. Going straight to AfD is a bad habit, especially for freshly created articles. If you're patrolling new pages, you should ONLY use prod & csd EVER. Anyway, now I'll cop an attitude and say you're discouraging good newbies and wasting time of other editors if you consistently use AfD instead of PROD. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Should have been PRODed first, actually. I agree it's a dicdef, but I'm against two-minute-flat AfDs on principle.  RGTraynor  00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Man, this should've been speedied a long time ago as patent nonsense. Qworty (talk) 23:20, 27 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. As Protonk notes there is the possibility of an article along these lines (perhaps following the pattern of other articles mentioned below), however right now there is a clear consensus to delete this version as an unnecessary (and largely duplicative) content fork of Allied war crimes during World War II.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA war crimes[edit]

USA war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination for User:JukoFF, who gave the cryptic explanation "Moved from quick removing." in a malformed AfD. As for me, I give an unbiased Delete as a case of synthesis and original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Syn, OR, POV. This is a notable subject, and one that is probably already covered in a half dozen other wikipedia articles. Were this list to be completely and totally reworked (including cited from plenty of places alleging war crimes by the US over the 19th and 20th century (though the phrase didn't have any legal weight in the 19th century), it might be worth it to hang on. But I don't see this article getting from here to there without a delete in between. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Synthesis at its worst. MrPrada (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV title, article lacks context or coherence (apparently is entirely about WWII), mostly links to existing articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is orphaned, cut-and-pasted from its origins at Allied war crimes during World War II where it was given context within a larger framework. This material belongs there, not in its own article. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Binksternet. As an aside: one of the "crimes" was the killing of some of the SS guards at the Dachau death camp by Americans who liberated it. The article on that incident referred to it as "mopping up," which seems more appropriate. Edison (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although this isn't the forum to discuss the legitimacy of war crime claims, if the "mopping up" occurred when the guards were disarmed or otherwise had surrendered, it was a war crime. I don't remember reading anything about the US doing that at concentration camps (the russians did), but we did it elsewhere at the end of the war. Protonk (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I can say is wow. Blahblah5555 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    that's not really an argument then. If you have a reason we should delete this article, please append it to your statement or the bottom of the page. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have German war crimes, Italian war crimes and Soviet war crimes and this article seems to follow a logical similar format, the fact that a country may have been responsible for war crimes should be discussed in detail (as it is with other nations) Thisglad (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then wouldn't it be fine to have an article entitled Allied War Crimes? Presumably if you consider the concentration camps as war crimes, the Italians and the Germans deserve a separate page. Russian acts in border countries and what would become East Germany probably merit s separate page. Are you prepared to show that the USA merits a separate page of war crimes distinct from the British, the French, or others? Protonk (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thisglad JukoFF (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you may or may not know, AfD is not a vote. If you would like admins to consider your arguments strongly, you are better served by formulating and expressing them yourself rather than just noting your assent or dissent to the proposal. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 20:46, 25 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 with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Sheep[edit]

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

Yes, it's a major label album by a very notable artist (and a very good artist at that). However, it seems to fail the acid test of reliable sources -- the album didn't produce any chart singles, and doesn't appear to have been reviewed in any third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, Klausness found a good source. I also forgot this album charted on the Top Kid Albums chart, so it's prolly notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:49, 24 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 transwiki or merge proposals can be discussed by interested editors on the article talk page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average frustrated chump[edit]

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


Delete: Primarily a definition of a neologism: cannot be made encyclopedic, belongs in a dictionary at best. Entry cannot be made NPOV because usage of the word is confined to pickup guides and supporters of the "pickup community". What little non-definitional information is included in the article is not verifiable for the same reason. Entry may not be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia -- it is specialized jargon which is not used in conventional speech.Auspex1729 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete following the above rationale, or redirect to seduction community.-Wafulz (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or merge not all articles have to be named after phrases of "conventional speech". I doubt the organization of this supposed "pickup community" or "seduction community", and many of us know that such people tend to be jerks, and that this is just how they talk about "friends" behind their backs. But given that we accept the existence of seduction community and their journal of note alt.seduction.fast (what Romeo uses UseNet, and in this day & age??), it would seem to exist in the asserted context. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not arguing about existence. We're saying it's an esoteric neologism almost entirely backed up by primary sources.-Wafulz (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News shows 31 uses [7], and Google has about 14000 exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Seems to describe why nice guys finish last, and to satisfy WP:N based on multiple substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources such as the New York Times, Guardian Unlimited, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, & Atlanta Journal Constitution. Edison (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, transwiki. It's got some mileage behind it, but the article is still just going to be Strauss' description of the word.-Wafulz (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just for a comparison, Stephen Colbert's "wikiality" got a small merge and redirect.-Wafulz (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. I am the main author of the article. I voted to delete in the last AFD, because I was unsatisfied with the quality of the article and was having conflicts with other users maintaining it. However, in light of its large number of appearances in Google News that Edison points out, the term has clearly gained a lot of mainstream popularity recently. There are reliable sources on it, so it cannot be excluded on the basis of WP:NEO. Contrary to the nom, it is simply not true that "usage of the word is confined to pickup guides and supporters of the "pickup community." See this article in the New York Sun which finds the term useful for describing Steve Carrell's role in the 40-year-old Virgin: To borrow some terminology from VH-1's smarmy reality series 'The Pick-Up Artist," Mr. Carell embodies an Average Frustrated Chump who transforms himself into an unlikely babe magnet through the magic powers of emotional revelation. While there isn't enough justification to delete the article, it is certainly in need of improvement. (I might support merging it into Seduction Community, except that the latter article is already very long and getting longer.) --SecondSight (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. Article as it stands is just the phrase and examples of its usage. Google News refs listed above are not about the word, but mention it as examples of neologic language used by certain groups. 14days (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aab Cardiovascular Research Institute[edit]

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

This Research institute appears non notable. Oo7565 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteI would have considered a speedy as G11, purely promotional. An individual research center of this sort is not notable. DGG (talk) 00:14, 27 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 already redirected. Wizardman 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munising, Michigan Police Department[edit]

Munising, Michigan Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. A local police department made up of five people. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A small police department that's unlikely to be the subject of any reliable sources. Munising sounds like a nice town, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to Munising, Michigan. Actually, I decided to be bold and do it anyway.  RGTraynor  00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Munising, Michigan. Small police departments like this are too local to have any impact beyond the local community. However, in an article about the community, it is not unreasonable to have some coverage of the local public services like the police department. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 30 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 WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (Note: The page was also re-created as a disambig per my suggestion. This is a cautionary note so that an admin doesn't accidentally delete the disambig. I've had this kind of thing happen before.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Time[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable song -- didn't chart, no sources, etc. etc. Recommend deleting and then turning into a dab page, so as to disambiguate among Good Time Records, the Alan Jackson album, and its title track. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:43, 24 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 on my talk page. Why that was done on my talk page, and not here, I don't know. The article does need some clean-up. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audicom[edit]

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

Audicom is a software product advertisement masquerading as an encyclopedic article and violates WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM. Same WP:V and WP:PRODUCT issues to delete are found here as in Audicom (PC audio cards). What troubles me the most is the blatant spam on so many audio pages. This is just one diff example of the many I continue to find. Users on this discussion have called me "an edit warrior" "feuding editor", yet, they completely ignore the scope of these individuals' self promotion activities at Wikipedia. One quick look at OscarJuan and Sebastian Ledesma's contributions confirms it. To make things more difficult to understand, there is clear evidence of sock and meat puppet activity. Jrod2 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article has been around since November 2006 and is notable as being the first audio broadcasting system for the PC. I don't really see where the article reads like an advertisement. ArcAngel (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Show me verified references to the fact that according to you "It's notable as being the first audio broadcasting system for the PC". There is nothing to support that claim. What is audicom? a company, a product or both? Jrod2 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, Google didn't existed before 1998. The Wayback machine didn't register articles before 1996 (even from big sites like Microsoft [8], and it took longer to start archiving articles from other countries. The World Wide Web itself was created in 1991, but initially as scientific project. It was until mid 90's that becomes popular, and by that time 'popular' was: all the students in a campus use it, and some companies have sites (just for marketing purpuses and not for real business). This article describe a working system with audio compression YEARS before that the (in)famous 'distribution10' was available from the MPEG comitee. So this article has relevance.

I didn't make an article about the company (wich is near 40 years old in the broadcast market) because I considered that it can be considerd self promoting. But what the company did, it's a merit: a working compression system.
How many companies in the world create a compression system?
It's an offence that an small company from Argentina did it?.
I didn't make an article about other products (like digital audio processors, or digital consoles) that the company currently sells. So, it's not spam. The company name it's Solidyne. The system name was Audicom. That's clarifies the doubts for the user JRod2.

And by last, but not least, it's AUDICOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLedesma (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sebastian Ledesma, we don't need to use only Google or Wayback to verify claims. We need PROOF by using the proper citations and references which your article has none. The fact that nothing is found on reputable and notable audio and science online magazines, except the same text borrowed from Wikipedia on blog sites, indicates a serious WP:V problem, but I also see violations of WP:SPAM by you, as some editors pointed out on the AfD at Audicom (PC audio cards) which is nothing but your company's product. Jrod2 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Was mentioned in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in 1993, according to hits on g-books and g-scholar. I can't get the volume number; someone who can access the journal would need to do that. There are quite a few g-hits (albeit spanish language) that would indicate some level of notability. Also, the nominator and the article creator appear to have a feud going, see the edit histories:[9] [10][11]. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: JeremyMcCracken, if you analyze my reverts, they are all related to Audicom or the www.Solidyne.com spam link or all the unverified claims by OscarJuan (confirmed sock puppeteer [12]) a/k/a Oscar Bonello d/b/a Solidyne.com and his meat puppet Sebastian Ledesma. Are you accusing me of bad faith edits against these individuals? If so, please do your homework. If my work to clean up spam and vandalism is not suitable to you, report me to WP:CVU at once. 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I was only giving the histories for an overview; I was really looking at edits like this:[13]. Unless I'm seeing something wrong, it appears that you were editing on this article before tagging it, and I count eight <ref>...</ref> pairs in the section you deleted. Additionally, you called it vandalism reversion in the edit summary (as opposed to problems with WP:RS, WP:OR, etc.) BTW, by "feud", I meant both ways. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Again JeremyMcCracken , Do your homework. The diff you are showing here is the rollback vandal by Twinkle, which is what TW does and you wouldn't know because you don't use it to do tedious tasks faster. I didn't "add" anything to the article, which means your assumption of some "feud" between me and the author is wrong. On the other hand, you appear to be forgetting WP:AGF and your recent delete of a justified and legitimate comment by me on your talk page, also reaffirms that point (see: diff Summary"(rm attack, don't contact me further)". Wikipedia is not a place to write your wrong conclusions. Jrod2 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OUTDENT I took it off of my talk page because the discussion is here. As WP:TWINKLE states, you take responsibility for what you click- if you labeled a non-vandal edit as vandalism, that's your doing, regardless of twinkle. A feud doesn't require you to add anything- it's a revert war. You still didn't address the removal of information that was full of citations- that's why I called it a feud, because I saw the reverts of cited material. Also, the edit summaries (example) that constantly referred to the other user as a confirmed sockpuppeteer and used of his real name made it sound like you two have a history. (Yes, I saw his sock, I'm not saying he's in the right.) There's no need to clog this AfD up by debating my links, so I'm not going to make any responses. I posted that for the information of others coming upon this AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me those citations now and I will support Keep'. Oh, you can't verify them, right? Perhaps, you want to use that external link to "El Diario La Nacion" as WP:RS?. We all speak Spanish here, but we can't use this at WP, can we? You've already disrupted and clogged both AfDs with unnecessary comments. Next time, Please do your homework. Jrod2 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are books- they don't fail WP:V automatically because they're not online. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I translated the weblink from that last diff, which wasn't in this article but a different one, it is here: Google;Yahoo Based upon what it says, upgrade from weak keep to keep. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't know the The AES Journal is a book. Anyway, regarding your first point, the reference fails because the text that was written supposedly at the Audio Engineering Society, is presumed to exist and their claims, edits and contributions are based on its presumed existence. Furthermore, according to WP:V "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.". Your second point, El Diario La Nacion, I doubt you can consider it a high-quality reliable source as it had also published similar material in Spanish without references or any verification. It's so easy in those third world countries to pay an editor to publish whatever you want. I certainly wouldn't trust the content and for sure, it's not a good enough reliable source for WP, either. What I've found out after investigating these non-verified edits this last week or so, it's that User:SLedesma and User:OscarJuan have been acting in concert to post information about themselves and their company www.Solidyne.com. Indeed one started doing this as early as November 2006. Their unverified research claims, company name and company products promotion, has been so extensive that the same claims and self promotion were found on at least 8 different audio pages. How they managed to elude detection is beyond me. But, nobody verified the information. This isn't just about deleting this article or the other one you are also opposing to delete. This is about stopping people that whether consciously or unconsciously, whether by lack of culture or ethics, have acted inappropriately and in effect, it all indicates that they came to WP to post information regardless of the lack of verifiable documentation and for their personal gain. Jrod2 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that this AES Journal reference is from an advertising that appeared in this publication (there are mainly articles, but also some adverts within the AES Journal)--Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Being the "first" something does not prove notability. What is needed is substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, which has not been shown for the subject of this article. Having an article which has been Wikipedia for a couple of years also does in no way establish notability. Seems rather promotional. Edison (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That nom/editor revert war sure looks like a revert war to me, and not rollback of vandalism. Protonk (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, check the diffs I didn't go to edit revert war, I had been doing some reverts yes. But no warring. You doing pretty good for an 8 day account, though. Jrod2 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That hurts me, right here. I hope you won't tell me to do my homework next. My account is 8 days old, but does that give you the impression I was born yesterday? I see huge blocks of pretty reasonable text blanked or reverted by you in those diffs. Now I can assume good faith--and I do--but it is still reasonable to say that you probably didn't want to deal w/ changing the text and just reverted it. The text was replaced and you reverted it (or similar text like it). Call it whatever you want, but that looks like an edit war. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, do your homework Protonk, focus on the issues at hand (Product or not? Verifiable or not?, Notable or not? Promotion or not?) and please stop clogging the discussion with irrelevant comments. I am tired of explaining myself to everyone new who didn't read the whole discussion because it's so long. Even if I did go to "edit war" as you say with these sock and meat puppets, which that's what they are whether you see it or not, the article should be kept at WP only for its own merit and also, careful attention should be paid at how it came about. . Jrod2 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this article should be kept, but also that it should be heavily reworked to be considered acceptable (ie requires cleanup). It needs to be about what the system brought as improvements when it was released, and why it should be considered significant. It should not be a list of all the different versions or a list of everyone involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Bouvigne (talk • contribs) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Hey Gabriel Bouvigne wasn't it you who asked me to look into OscarJuan's sock puppet IP?. (see: [14]). These are OscarJuan's contributions ([15])
I guess what I read about, "do not create articles, if you are associated with a website, or do not create articles about your friends" is out the window because these are guidelines not policy. You have no problem with an article about their software, but their hardware is not Ok, correct? Then, one should expect to have the other AudiCom, which is "a video analysis system for auditing commercial broadcasts" (see: [16]. This Audicom has better references than the Audicom, audio broadcast software. AUDICOM now reads more like a product, doesn't it? Last time I checked WP:PRODUCT "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". Another guideline on Notability says: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. All too often articles are the subject of bitter deletion debates where anybody on either side of the debate could have fixed the article with far less effort than was spent fighting about it. Deletion should be considered a last resort used for articles that cannot be developed to Wikipedia's standards." (see: [17]). My last point to make is, we shouldn't reward a team of editors whose obvious aim is to promote their company for their own personal gain. If their products were notable and verified by reliable sources, editors who heard about these products would have created this article, not the owner or the company associates. In this case, editors shouldn't vote to keep unless they are willing to work towards fixing this product article. Having a software screenshot and a picture of some generic audio cards published by an Argentinian paper is hardly any proof. Imagine how easy it is to make a hoax; by having Wikipedia publish an article, it really doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Bottom line, if there isn't something written on a publication like "Mix Magazine", let's get rid of it and move on to do things that are worthier. Jrod2 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close I got up this morning, looked at the exchange above, and thought, What was I thinking? The nom has previously edit-warred on the article they nominated. If it were blatant advertising, why was it edited rather than nominated for deletion back then? AfD is not a fix for content disputes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These TWO editors deleted the same unverified content I did (See: [20] [21] which was reverted by OscarJuan and which they didn't dispute , I think because they assumed that OscarJuan was a good faith and neutral editor (I don't know this for sure, that's the reason I invited them. See: [22] and [23]). Vote stacking also says "Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be acceptable.". I believe that asking only 2 editors who are familiar with the case to join in the discussion, should be hardly considered "canvassing". You on the other hand, have confirmed that you don't assume good faith on this discussion and I ask that your vote to be discounted from the final results, as you have some kind of a bias against me for doing crime fighting. Jrod2 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't on both sides of the debate- they'd both been on your side against the other user, which you said in the messages. I wouldn't have a problem if there were people on both sides, as there hasn't been much participation here. It's not a vote BTW, it's a discussion, but as I said above, AfD is not how you fix an existing content dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to say it for the last time Jeremy and hopefully you can get it. I contacted 2 people I thought could help explain what their views were on the matter. Their opinions could have been different today so there was no way to predict what they would say. You are a ridiculous debater for accusing me of "vote stacking" in order to weakened my position in this discussion and I am tired of all your bad faith comments and insinuations. BTW, I know an AfD is NOT a vote but a discussion, you are the one saying I am "vote stacking". Finally, I don't have a content dispute with these editors, I had been reverting for lack of verifiable citations which is policy. There is no content dispute in matters of verifiability (per WP:V) policy. unverified material is deleted, no questions asked. My AfD has nothing to do with any content disputes with them because I didn't make any contributions to the articles these editors were working on. Not that I won't in the future. You are being a problem in this discussion, disrupting it, clogging it and prompting me to write too much to my defense. The topic IS "should we delete this article" or WP:AfD, not is "Jrod2 guilty of doing something?". Furthermore, I've been in communications with the article's main editor and he has explained his motives and as I assume good faith, I am accepting his explanations so my opinion can be swayed. If I choose to help him with his contributions, that's my decision and none of your business too. Now, go on and do productive edits. Jrod2 (talk) 22:19, 26 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 by Tiptoety , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timdougjake[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (G3 and/or A7) - appears to be pretty blatant vandalism ("specialize in bringing sexy back"). Even if G3 doesn't apply, it still fails A7. nneonneo talk 17:39, 24 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. Fram (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Tau Rho[edit]

Mu Tau Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strange article about a "sorority for mothers and future mothers". There's a chance that this article could be saved... but it's hard to figure it out at this point. Damiens.rf 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of WP:N for this new and local group; minimal news coverage [24], [25]. JJL (talk) 18:00, 24 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. Fram (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Fukiya Association[edit]

International Fukiya Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability for this blowgun association is not established in the article. Damiens.rf 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Which, as it happens, a casual search demonstrates cannot be. A threadbare 20 unique Google hits [26], almost all of which are this article and various Wiki mirrors.  RGTraynor  00:14, 25 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 'Already deleted as expired prod. Fram (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Delta Sigma Fraternity, Inc.[edit]

Phi Delta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a press release for a campus fraternity. It's even written in the first person ("...through these qualities our members will become better prepared..."). I'm not convinced this organization is notable enough. Damiens.rf 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn at this point; just alocal group with no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prod'ed. This works well in such cases when the author is unlikely to care or pay much attention. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:18, 24 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. The suggested merge location contains merely a list of schools, and this one is already on it. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Catholic High School[edit]

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

Non-notable high school that will open in Augus 2008. Article sounds like a press-release. Damiens.rf 17:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All schools are notable. ArcAngel (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reference to a consensus that supports that? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought we were done with the random deletions of high schools?EagleFan (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article updated with external references. Should be Kept. EagleFan (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator : I'm sorry if I'm doing something wrong here, but I am not aware of this high-schools deletion debates. Is there really a policy or guideline saying that all schools are notable? If so, does it apply to yet-to-be-open schools? I swear I'm acting in good faith. --Damiens.rf 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - check out Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education. There's a policy proposal at WP:SCH, but nothing concrete yet. No opinion from me, but I'm chopping out the Background section as it's almost all a copyvio of [27]. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I retored the section with new data and external references. Thanks for your help!EagleFan (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears that a recent debate resulted in the deletion of the phrase that declared all high schools to be notable. The proposed guidelines ( which are still under development) about school notability are at WP:Notability (schools). Paradoxsociety (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The target for a merge/redirect in this case is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit#High Schools if it comes to that. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The school, while operating with the blessing of the Church, is operated completely independent of the Diocese. If the Deltionists win this nomination, I would just suggest deleting, not merging, the information as there is not a relevant related article.EagleFan (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: as per Gene93k. Quite aside from that the oft-quoted "policy" isn't even a consensus, let alone black-letter policy or guideline, we're talking about a school that has not yet opened. It will not have, therefore, garnered the awards, alumni, controversies or sporting championships typically used to justify a secondary school's notability at AfD.  RGTraynor  00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Gene93k and RGTraynor. Paradoxsociety (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RB Traynor. This will take care of crystal ball considerations. Once the school finally opens, it will have additional independent coverage and will most likely have enough information available for a stand-alone article. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the school has been open since 1991. The expansion is from K-8 to K-12.EagleFan (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean that there's been a school of the same name open. If there had been a previous article covering the K-8 parochial school, and that article established notability for the elementary/middle school, then there'd be no problem. This doesn't seem to have been the case.  RGTraynor  21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per discussions. The school does not yet exist. Once it does, then it can be determined if it is in fact notable. Current guideline that exist or are proposed do not seem to support any kind of notability exemption for this school. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Archdiocese. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Everest Catholic schools. What we have is an existing school, Everest Academy, that educates in elementary/middle grades and a new school, Everest Catholic High School, that will open in August, on the same site and under the same educational management. The fact that the high school has not yet opened is not necessarily crystalballism; we have sufficient precedent on forthcoming CDs, books, films etc that a page can be justified if the planned event is reliably sourced and there is something encyclopaedic to say. Thanks to EagleFan, there are now multiple sources. I don't see much point in merging the page and then breaking it out again in less than four months time. What I am proposing is a new page Everest Catholic schools that can have two sections, one on Everest Academy which has a sourced, innovative educational approach and one on the High School for which there is also worthwhile content. Such an article would be somewhat analogous to a public school district. 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there are enough parochial schools in the diocese to justify it, it makes perfect sense to me.  RGTraynor  16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - does not meet my standards yet - insufficient number of cites, not yet enrolling students, no alumni, etc. Do not delete, just in case, so we can re-create it more easily when it becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 30 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; one of the rare occasions where WP:MUSIC#C6 is actually logical. Black Kite 00:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sauze[edit]

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

Recently formed band that is yet to release its first album Damiens.rf 17:15, 24 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 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Get Go[edit]

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

Recently created band that is yet to release its first album. Damiens.rf 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band's debut album will be released in about 2 weeks in Japan on the Dynamord Label.PerfectChaos337 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This counts as a Delete, right? --Damiens.rf 05:11, 25 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 The article does not contain any sources, or indeed, any references at all. So we have to rely on searching, and on taking the claims the article makes at face value (because we assume good faith). So what do we have?

  • This BLP is an officer of a major financial corporation, with a history of having been an officer or senior person at various other major corporations. The corporations are notable, and have articles, but not every employee of a corporation is notable just for working there. In particular, not all the "C" level officers are... the CEO usually is, and sometimes the COO or chairman of the board, but not typically the CFO, or CIO/CTO, or the CLO, which is what this person is. So notability is not transferred automatically from the corporate history.
  • The article makes no other claims of notability, no statements of significant events or achievements. But the sole keep voter claims notability from multiple mentions in NY Times articles. I did not exhaustively review every article, (it is true there are a large number of hits from the search) but in spot checking, for the ones that actually refer to this person (a significant number are for other people named Gary Lynch), they mention him in passing. There is no specific biographical mention given. So notability is not conferred by Gary having been the subject of a substantial biography in book form, or multiple substantial biographies in articles.
  • The large number of hits for the Google search "Gary Lynch" SEC are deceptive... when you get past the first few screens, many of the returns are for sports personalities and the like. Further, as with the NYT articles, every one I checked mentions Gary in passing. Again, no specific substantial bio given.

Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Tsai, recently deleted by me... this person is less notable than Mr. Tsai is. For a marginally notable BLP, with few or no sources, and no prospect of further expansion, the default outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be delete. Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later. --++Lar: t/c 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lynch[edit]

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

Notability. This attorney seems to have a good c.v., but I'm not completely convinced he is notable enough. Also, there's not reliable sources backing up the few notability claims. Damiens.rf 17:04, 24 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 under G11, blatant advertising (and author was blocked for a username violation). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ansata[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:04, 24 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beadle and tatum[edit]

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

The individuals already have their own articles so this page is redundant. There is no way to redirect to both articles otherwise I would have done so. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The two scientists are highly notable and this is a plausible search term. Would it be appropriate to turn this page into a pseudo-disambiguation page? Something like:
For information on the work of George Wells Beadle and Edward Lawrie Tatum, see articles on:
FreeKresge (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either one. If you redirect to one you'll immediately find a link to the other right there in the first paragraph. This doesn't need to be deleted. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 00:18, 30 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 real need for AFD in obvious cases like this. Friday (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achronolate[edit]

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

Zero Ghits. Original research, protologism, no reliable sources. nneonneo talk 16:47, 24 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.


lame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.65.171 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that this is a legitimate academic field. WilliamH (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft and children[edit]

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

This synthesis from other sources appears to be original research and fails WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Interesting and sourced, but is it worth a separate entry? I have my doubts. Pundit|utter 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a valid academic subject, as evidenced by the references. Witchcraft is concerned with enough other things and needs development itself, so a merge would probably be counterproductive. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is hardly a day old. There are plenty of potential sources out there. The topic is notable, not least of all because of the "in popular culture" section. The sourcing might be awfully hard to find online as a lot of medieval history and history of witchcraft is in books and journals, not online (though a shocking amount is online). Protonk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Sources are located in books and not online. They were obtained at the San Diego State University library. tmsmom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmsmom (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    there are now sources on the talk page that you can get to if you are logged in at a university library. Should be better than encyclopedias. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources added to article demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be written on this subject. Nominator is encouraged in the future to, if you have notability concerns with an article, to tag it first instead sending it to AfD when it's 9 minutes old and still actively being edited. That's what the tags are for. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject appears to have plenty of notability. Aleta Sing 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A user that is using actual books! I love it! Keep it for sure. Blahblah5555 (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very poor article that lacks sufficient references to support the connection. Yahel Guhan 23:06, 27 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.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Bolton[edit]

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

Article about a living person who has complained about the article in the past. The article is a permastub. The person has received very marginal media coverage - I tried google news archives, and when mentioned, it seems to be as someone within the National Front, rather than him being the subject of the article. Andjam (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The subject is a leader in the Holocaust denial field, has been the publisher of a dozens of anti-semitic tracts, the writer of many of them, and a leader of various fascist and occult organizations. On the other hand, those "accomplishments" do not meet the notability standards. While I think the subject is interesting and worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, until he is the subject of a profile in a reliable source, or otherwise meets our notability standards, we don't need to have an article about him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have to agree that he's under the WP:N wire. Like Andjam, I don't see any reliable sources about the subject, rather than casual mentions. Given WP:BLP concerns and that this is likely to be a (however minor) vandalism magnet, I'm for deletion.  RGTraynor  00:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first of the references in the article contains 3 pages about the subject, starting here. I don't have access to the second book, but I presume those who have commented above do, as otherwise it would not have been possible for them to say that the references provided are not enough for notability, so please could one of you let us know how substantial the coverage is? I have also found this coverage in a German book, and this book contains a profile of the subject according to the table of contents, but I don't have access to it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis of the sources found by Phil Bridger. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a far-right (or far-anything) activist does not confer notability unless and until that person has some significant grounds for notability above and beyond merely being an activist, author of ehpemeral tracts, or leader of minor groups with little significance in and of themselves. An example of one who does meet the notability bar is Jean-Marie Le Pen. This person does not. KleenupKrew (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Phil and Will. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepon the basis of the sources found DGG (talk) 23:54, 29 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 a3, no meaningful, substantive content; WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider man 4 film[edit]

Spider man 4 film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely OR it seems, no citations and sounds like advertising to me. asenine t/c\r 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR and WP:WRITTEN BY AN 8-YEAR-OLD. Potatoswatter (talk) 16:08, 24 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 Deleted per CSD G11. Nakon 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media-selections.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:16, 24 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijumping[edit]

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

PROD removed by author without comment. Wikipedia is not for something made up one day, and no references establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article is a proof you can learn something or get an idea even on pages doomed to deletion. Unfortunately not very often. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I also remembered something similar, and I looked at the logs to see if this had been deleted before, but no - the earlier one must have been under some other name. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the game that was similar to this (and summarily deleted) was Five Clicks to Jesus if i'm not mistaken. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can find no coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Not to mention WP:SELF. --BelovedFreak 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wouldn't consider this nonsense, though; it's just another iteration of the same game that has been deleted at least 24 times before under different names, and had been deleted at least 15 times before the supposed creator of this game "invented" it. See my user page for details. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Patent WP:NONSENSE. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think this is a Speedy Delete candidate, please review WP:NONSENSE. This article makes perfect sense. I recommend a slow carefully thought out delete per WP:N. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. WP:NONSENSE is for articles that can't be understood by reading them. This is silly, but it's just something made up one day. Not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree as well. If you read this article, you will know how to play this game, so it's not nonsense. Of course, if you've been on Wikipedia for a while, you probably knew the rules of this game before this article was even written, because we've seen it many times before under other names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 26 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. I read Cycloenim's argument, and can only say that if evidence of independent recognition can be provided, then another article might be created which does not have the problems this article has. At present, everything is sourced to itself, and bears resemblance to advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which caravan[edit]

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

Just advertising un-notable magazine.Triwbe (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think it is notable, needs a fair amount of work but it is a recognised (arguably..) magazine. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Ugh, this is awful. It's a vanity-spam-self-promo-COI-advert, one of the worst ever. On the talk page, the author admits "The page is designed as a reference tool to inform the public about a viable publication." That's what I like--honest spam! No, actually I hate spam. Nuke this can of it, nuke it hard. Qworty (talk) 09:37, 26 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Hard Choices[edit]

Very Hard Choices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the notability requirements for books. Novel isn't even released yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BK#Not yet published books. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not quite meet the qualifications of being "higly anticipated" of WP:BK#Not yet published books. Author is notable, with rabid fans, but so far coverage seems to be publicity rather than critical notice. No prejudice against recreation after publication and the reviews are there. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ArcAngel (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created the article, and while I don't quite agree with the policy (and I wasn't aware of it until this came up), I don't own WP and will respect the rules. I'll recreate it when the book is released, but delete it myself now. CatherS (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Ooops. Thought it would let me delete an article I created. I'll let the process run its course, but not balk it.CatherS (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:51, 24 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. If the sources make the article as viable as the keepist says, then my all means he can recreate the article. Wizardman 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three news anchors[edit]

Big Three news anchors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Surprisingly, this phrase gets just 26 non-wiki ghits and no hits on google news. Certainly, each of the anchors is notable individually, but I'm not finding refs for this particular concept. Prod was contested. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in my view, if the Chancellor/Cronkite/??? era isn't mentioned, the article isn't worth keeping. ArcAngel (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I follow this reasoning for deletion. Could you explain why failing to mention the Cronkite et al era means the article should be deleted? BuddingJournalist 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Budding Journalist here. This sounds like a reason to expand the article, not to delete.--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, the reason I contested the prod is because the phrase is widely used in the American journalism community, and almost always in reference to either "Brokaw/Jennings/Rather" (before that era, there was no real "big three") or nowadays "Couric/Gibson/Williams". It's evolved into a standard phrase for the three nightly news anchors of ABC/NBC/CBS. It's definitely notable and certainly not OR. Reliable sources are aplenty (for example, this suggests there are far more than 26 non-wiki ghits; there are plenty of results for the phrase in LexisNexis, and the various books written about the Brokaw/Jennings/Rather era all use some variation of that phrase). That said, I'm not sure if the article will be able to do much more than a dict. def. I'll give a go and see if I can make it more encyclopedic though. BuddingJournalist 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly the concept is valid, the name aside. There was a 15-or-so-year period where all three US broadcast networks had a "star" anchor. (Doc, neither of those names was an anchor. Sawyer was considered but did not get the job, IIRC.) But this is probably better discussed in news anchor or television in the United States. --Dhartung | Talk 18:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no I completely understand. I just wasn't sure what nightly newscasts were we talking about here: the ABC/NBC/CBS news after the local news or newsmagazines like Dateline and 60 Minutes. It didn't go into things and didn't source any of its claims, and besides this information could be covered and expanded in other articles (the ones for the newscasters themselves, the programs, the channels, etc.) Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently redundant with several other articles. Anything that might be covered here could be covered far better elsewhere (in the articles about the news programs.) WillOakland (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it is not original research (a Wikipedia no-no), it is either a POV fork or a synthesis (two more no-nos). There seems to be no source indicating "Big Three news anchors" and any definition of the term, explicit or implied. B.Wind (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The nominator is mistaken and undoubtedly forgot to check the Google News archives when searching for the phrase: There are 21 hits for the phrase in the archives. But "Big Three anchors" gets even more hits: 142 in the archives. Searching for the phrase "Big Three" with all the words "Jennings", "Rather", and "Brokaw" brings up 610 hits, though this conflates instances of the phrase "Big Three" referring to the news anchors themselves with references to the news anchors of the "Big Three television networks". Nevertheless, there is no shortage of reliable sources for the phrase "Big Three" referring to the anchors themselves: The New York Times: "this was the most traveling that the Big Three news anchors had done since the summer of 1997"; The New York Daily News: "The Big Three news anchors are heading to Oklahoma City"; The Washington Post: "Jennings, Rather and Brokaw once dominated the media landscape ... the Big Three anchors were well-established figures"; USA Today: "Jennings was the last of the Big Three anchors in an era of shrinking broadcast audiences"; The Orlando Sentinel: "The big three anchors are well out of the 18-to-49 demographic so dear to advertisers"; Broadcasting & Cable: "ABC's Peter Jennings will be 64 this year, and Dan Rather will be 72. But last week it was the youngest of the Big-Three anchors, Tom Brokaw, at a sprightly 62, who announced plans to ... make way for Brian Williams, just 43, to take over as the face of NBC News"; The New York Times again: "CNN and Court TV, those loyal chroniclers, were upstaged by the Big Three: Jennings, Rather, Brokaw"; and again: "And in contrast to the so-called 'Big Three' — Mr. Brokaw, Mr. Jennings and Dan Rather of CBS, who began their anchor careers in earnest in the early 1980's with little other competition..." Sure, the article needs to be improved but with this many sources there should be no doubt as to notability. DHowell (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In addition to news articles, there is at least one book that is entirely and exclusively about the "Big Three" news anchors: Anchors: Brokaw, Jennings, Rather and the Evening News. I'm not sure whether it uses the phrase or not, as none of the book's contents are viewable online, but a Google Book search brings up this book and a few more with significant coverage. DHowell (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question. Have you bothered to put any of this myriad of sources in this two sentence article? That's where they belong... not here. Make sure that one of those sources actually has a definition of the term as the article presents it. Don't forget that the actual title of the article is Big Three (news anchors), not Big Three news anchors - that does make a difference (the latter is a redirect page). B.Wind (talk) 02:39, 29 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. This would be a straight keep or possibly no consensus if we closed discussion by headcount but since we assess consensus by reference to policy and guidelines this does come down to delete. The argument for deletion concerns whether these subjects are sufficiently notable to be included. None of the articles have any sources and the nominator has taken care to only bundle articles where there does not appear to be a liklihood of extensive sources being provided. Although a number of editors have argued keep by asserting notability no-one has provided any sources and we are therefore left to consider whether this is notability by assertion or a statement that the subjects are inherantly notable. Clearly, for example, an article on the international relations between say Vanuatu and Greenland is a nonsense and this leads me to the conclusion that it would not be right to accept that these articles have inherant notability as there clearly has to be a judgement of degree notability. Given the absence of sources which are used as the traditional measure of notability I am left with the conclusion that the only correct way to close this discussion is delete. I feel that this is still a slightly unsatisfactory outcome so I would be willing to revisit this close should there subsequently be a wider discussion elsewhere that leads to a clearer conclusion on where, in the absence of sources, we should draw the line with marginal "bilateral relations between X & Y" type articles. Spartaz Humbug! 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral relations of Ireland[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Cyprus-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Croatian-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Bulgarian-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Georgian-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Greek-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Maltese relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Montenegrin relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Paraguayan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Ukrainian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Romanian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is a series of stub articles on bilateral relations between Ireland and another country. In each case, the article says little more that that diplomatic relations exist, and there is an embassy somewhere. I don't see any significant prospect of these articles being expanded, because in none of these cases does Ireland have any significant trade links with these countries, nor are there significant emigrant populations involved.

    Several of these countries are, like Ireland, members of the European Union, so there will undoubtedly be diplomatic dealing relating to EU business, but those would be best discussed under an EU heading. At the moment Ireland's EU relations are covered only briefly in Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland#European_Union, which is inadequate because the EU is highly significant for Ireland ... but even if that that coverage is expanded, we are still several steps away from needing separate articles on the bilateral relationships.

    Note that I have not nominated all the Irish bilateral relations articles; there are also articles on Irish-South African relations, Australian-Irish relations, Argentine-Irish relations, Irish-Russian relations, Canada-Ireland relations, Ireland-United States relations and Anglo-Irish relations.

    This is because:

    Note that before making this AFD nomination, I raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland, where there was a suggestion to merge to a list. There is already a list of Diplomatic missions of Ireland, which could indeed be expanded to include dates and details of embassies, but since even the list of Irish embassies and the list of diplomatic missions to Ireland on the Department of Foreign Affairs website doesn't include much detail (embassy contact-listings only in the examples I checked), I don't see it as an important issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS I should have stated this explicitly: there is no sign of the substantial covergage in reliable sources which would establish the notability of these topics per WP:N. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link The more general issue was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations getting out of hand. The consensus wasn't perfect but generally little opposition to this. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Stub article are harmless and even the minimal content described by the nominator is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep: Unfortunately, you're making subjective judgment calls as to what relations linkages is more important than others. I'm fine with a merge, but there has to be solider criteria.  Ravenswing  15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Ravenswing. Umm, the burden of proof works the other way round: it's up to those who create articles to demonstrate notability, and I see no evidence that any these articles cover a notable topic: they are mere footnotes of diplomacy. If you disagree, please can we have some references to the substantial coverage in reliable sources which would establish notability per WP:N. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is only part of a larger issue. The author Groubani (talk · contribs) seemed to set out to create a compete set of "X-Y relations" stubs for every X and Y combination in the world - see, for example Georgian-South Korean relations. I know there were pleas for him to stop, and to consult at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations, and at one stage he was temporarily blocked "for creating non-notable articles"; but I don't know how far he went in the end. If this AfD succeeds decides on deletion, perhaps someone, maybe the Wikiproject International relations, should look at the others and try to create a consensus on how many of these it is sensible to have. JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in the light of my comment above, I think the question is whether the encyclopedia would benefit from having what would be (given 192 members of the UN) over 35,000 stub articles, the great majority of which would say only "X-Y relations are relations between X and Y", which cannot really be considered notable. Better to have lists of diplomatic missions for each country, and create an X-Y relations article only when there is something notable to put in it. JohnCD (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see an analogy here between diplomatic relationships and places. Even if every pair of countries had embassies, there would be less than 200^2 = 40000 articles to create. This really isn't so much in comparison to the number of human settlements which are also all notable. However, these articles appear to be randomly created by hand, as opposed to a uniform bot converting census data, and there appear to be no selection criteria. Only Greece-Ireland within the nominated articles is entirely within the EU, but that might be simply random. Most articles state that "A has relations with B through A's diplomat in C and B's diplomat in D." Clearly this guy has access to some useful information, although it's frustratingly unreferenced. Many facts here are salient and do not seem to appear in other articles, so merge to Foreign relations of XXX, where XXX is a country with an actual diplomatic mission, with one section per mission, and come up with the references. This kind of article would be nice to get from a bot, but until then, if WikiProject International Relations doesn't want them, they will inevitably be orphaned, and will drain resources from better organized efforts. Potatoswatter (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. There is no consensus to delete this type of articles, as far as I can tell from a discussion at WikiProject International relations. I agree many of these articles are just unreferenced stubs, but the topic seems to be notable. The listed countries are bound by several bilateral and multilateral treaties and there are bilateral flows of goods, tourists, and migrants. All this can make it into an article in the future. But my vote is "weak" keep. Although I can imagine expansion of many of these stubs (e.g. Greek-Irish relations), Georgian-Irish relations, Irish-Montenegrin relations, and Irish-Paraguayan relations are perhaps not salvageable at all. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Per WP:N, notability is demonstrated not by assertion, but by substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I see no evidence of any such coverage in any of these cases. You mention bilateral agreements, but can you list any? Does Ireland have bilateral agreements with any of these countries? (they will all be in the public domain if they exist, because of article 29.5.1 of the [[Constitution of Ireland], which provides that "Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann", with an exemption in 29.5.3 for "agreements or conventions of a technical and adminstrative character".) Also, I don't understand why you say "weak keep" when you list only one article as being capable of expansion, and even in that case you say that you "imagine" the expansion rather than offering any evidence of the possibility.
        The "keep" arguments here all seem to me to be broadly similar: they rightly stress the importance of the topic of bilateral relations, but fail to distinguish between those bilateral relationships which are actually significant to one or other party, and those which amount to little beyond the formal level of accrediting ambassadors and the low-level practicalities of consular arrangements.
        I have no objection to any of these articles being recreated if notability can be established, but in this discussion so far there has not been one shred of evidence for the notability of even one of the ten bilateral relationships nominated for deletion. They would all make useful list entries, but a list entry is not an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep acceptable stubs. Important topics are notable. Per WP:N the substantial coverage part is just in cases we cant tell otherwise. For example, intrinsically unimportant topics that get sufficient coverage are also notable for our purposes. Here, by parallel to other such, and the fact that we cover all nations equally, they are notable. DGG (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. Sorry, but that short commendably short comment needs a long reply, because it seems to me to be little more than a sophisticated way of saying WP:ILIKEIT. (I doubt that was DGG's intention, but I think that's the effect).
        The claim that "Important topics are notable" is not what WP:N says:

        Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it.

        "Importance" is a subjective concept which amounts to original research, whereas we have some reasonably objective tests of notability ... and the importance of that objectivity is stressed in WP:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence. In this discussion I have repeatedly asked for evidence of notability for these topics, but there has been absolutely none: nothing at all to satisfy any of the principles or tests set out in WP:N.
        "Important topics are notable" is also a rather tautological argument, like saying that "expensive things cost a lot of money". On what basis does anyone claim that Irish-Montenegrin relations are important, or that there is anything significant to say on the subject that could not be easily accommodated in a brief list entry?
        However, the notion that really surprises me is the claim that "we cover all nations equally": that's completely untrue and I'm really astonished than an experienced editor could claim that. What we actually do is rather different: we try to cover things in relation to their significance to each country. We have an article on Pacific Islander American because it's a significant topic, and likewise Irish American, but nothing on Pacific Islander Irish, because the number of Pacific Islanders in Ireland is negligible. Although we have a lots of detailed articles on American and Soviet space technology, there's next to nothing on Ireland, because Ireland's involvement in such things has only been through the European Space Agency. That's not inequality, its just reality.
        Wikipedia doesn't have articles just to even out the numbers between countries, we have articles to cover the things that matter in those countries. A big nation such as the United States or China inevitably has a major diplomatic, commercial and military involvement with many many countries ... but Ireland, with a small fraction of the resources, has to prioritise its diplomatic relations, which is why bilateral relations with Montenegro get only a one-line mention in the Dept of Foreign affairs website. That's no slur on either country, just a reflection of the reality that two nations don't interact much, because small countries can't do everything.
        The notion that all bilateral relationships are notable works fine where a superpower is involved, but it's not the case with small nations. Category:Foreign relations of the United States contains hundreds of articles that simply couldn't be replicated for Ireland, such as the articles on military alliances. If we were to create articles to fulfil the aim of treating all countries equally, we'd have lots of articles saying that Ireland has no military alliances in Asia, none in Africa, etc ... which would be daft, because Ireland has no military alliances at all, just as it has no glaciers or grisly bears. On bilateral relations, Guinea-Bissau-United States relations is a useful start-class article with real content and apparent scope for expansion, but Ireland's relations with Guinea-Bisseau amount to assigning it as one of the jobs of Ireland's ambassador to the UN; there is no reason to assume that that there is much if anything more to say on the subject, but according to this cover-all-nations-equally we'd have to have an article saying that each of these two countries has a file in the others office at the UN.
        Finally, I want to make a broader point about WP:N, which too many editors miss: it's: it's not some arbitrary construct to conserve diskspace on the servers, it's also an important consequence of WP:V and WP:NOR. Put simply, the selection of topics other than by the tests set out in WP:N amounts to original research, and if there isn't substantial coverage of a topic, any non-trivial article is likely to consist either of original research or of synthesis. Restricting notability to topics that reliable sources find notable enough to cover substantially is one of our bulwarks against original research, and I'm very disappointed to see to see an AFD discussion in which some experienced editors seem to me to be ready to cast those principles aside. Yes, there are some systemic bias consequences of WP:N and the associated policies of WP:V, WP:RS etc because they favour those with the printing presses (or their modern equivalents such as web servers and TV newsrooms, or in older times those who could afford to employ scribes to write up the annals) ... but if there's a better way of doing things, it isn't yet anywhere near wikipedia's fundamental policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep most of them - the relations between any two members of the EU must be notable. So keep the ones for Greece, Malta, and such. These topics are obviously worthy of WP. Not so sure about Ireland/Uraguay. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This is fascinating: another assertion of notability, but still no evidence of it :( There are obviously some interactions as members of the 27-nation EU, but where is the evidence that these bilateral relationships in that framework are notable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 30 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. Might go to DRV, but I'd argue that although it doesn't technically quite hit WP:MUSIC, I find it difficult to believe that a band with at least four releases on 4AD aren't notable. Black Kite 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scheer (band)[edit]

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

    Not notable. Only redlinks in the article, and no sources. Llamabr (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I don't see any sources in the article, so notability has not been established. ArcAngel (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...in the article"? Come on, please only vote delete an article if you cannot find sources outside it. Try Google or Findarticles next time for a change. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a very, very famous band in Northern Ireland! i'd have thought the few links in the article already verify some of its notability. Anyway, if you have searched the archives at Findarticles.com, you'd have easily found at least this decent reference, and another mention here (trivial as it is, this mention still demonstrates notability as you can see this band is mentioned along the line with the two Irish bands Ash (band) and Therapy?, which are both super famous!) There is also an entry at Vh1, as well as professional interview, another entire entry at irishmusiccentral.com. All can be used as sources. Come on. This band IS notable. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:08, 30 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. Fram (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    White Hat Marketing[edit]

    White Hat Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete article about recently-founded SEO company. It gets about 1500 non-Wikipedia hits on an internet search, many of them from link farms and blogs. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Mindmatrix 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi... not sure how I'm supposed to partipate here, but hopefully this works. Anyway, I input this entry on White Hat Marketing as an encyclopediac entry on an SEO marketing business. I dont' know anything about the link farms, but the blogs concerned are not personal blogs but rather business ones which operate as websites in themselves regarding the topic they cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian at Terminus (talk • contribs) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. A search engine manipulation firm? Using Wikipedia to boost its visibility? Who'd a thunk it? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Reads like an advertisement. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I input this Delete not notable, few Ghits, fails WP:CORP. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the article currently stands I would've said Speedy Delete as spam; however; stubbing it a bit more and taking out some of the spammy elements may allow it to be expanded properly with reliable 3rd party sources and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Reads like an ad and is non-notable. asenine t/c\r 16:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above, failing WP:CORP and WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'm still not sure what the problem is. It's an encyclopediac entry about the company. How is it any different from any other entry about a company? It tells what the company does. I just don't see how this is spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian at Terminus (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Because not every company belongs on wikipedia. Wikipedia entries for companies must follow WP:CORP. those companies must have significant secondary source coverage or otherwise be significant in their fields in order to merit inclusion. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 28 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. Fram (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    X Plus-Minus[edit]

    X Plus-Minus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article is about a method to predict movements in financial markets. I think the topic is not verifiable because there are no sources on it except for the website of the company that has developed the method. It is a very new method; only a few weeks of data is available on the website. The method is not described on the website and I can't find any previous analysis. The article was speedily deleted under the "blatant advertising" clause (and re-created) but I don't think it qualifies as that. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it qualifies for Speedy Delete as spam because the only source for the information is a self promoting website. However, in the interest of fairness I did google it and didn't find any reliable third party sources for Notability so it probably fails on that anyway. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete private (insert your phrase here) fails WP:N everytime. ArcAngel (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Jitse. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:24, 27 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. I've been following this with interest and I endorse Dweller's praise for the constructive development of the debate. Ty 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ľudovít Lehen[edit]

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

    Disputed prod. I can't tell if this chap is indeed notable. No comprehensible evidence currently - the external links are not in English. Would appreciate some help with this one. Dweller (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'm assuming he sets chess problems, which is a notable activity. I've posted to the Chess WikiProject, as well as those relating to Slovakia and Visual arts. I suspect he has below-par notability claims on all fronts, but clarity would be nice. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep based on being in the Slovak National Gallery in Bratislava, but I need to see some better references. I really can't tell at the moment what third-party references are available. freshacconcispeaktome 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems to be directly translated from this at the German wiki. He gets about 522 ghits. Maybe someone fluent in German can translate the page and we can evaluate this better. freshacconcispeaktome 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Is the article correct that he has a permanent exhibition at the Slovak National Gallery? Their website search doesn't find his name, nor does Google I'd tend to agree with Freshacconci that if it is true, that'd convey sufficient notability as an artist alone, bearing in mind Pawnkingthree's reasonable assertions (below) re chess. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not any that I would know about, unfortunately for article. That is why I have based my Keep on his chess notability. Indeed I disagree with Pawnkingthree's view, let me elaborate below, in comment under his vote. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete:He was awarded the FIDE Master title for his chess compositions in 2005 by the Permanent Commission of the FIDE for Chess Compositions, according to this. It's the third highest title available for composing, after Grandmaster and International Master and has only existed since 1990. Unless Lehen's chess problems have attracted significant interest in any third party sources, I would suggest that FM level isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there a delsort for AfDs in chess? I don't know anything about chess, so I'm out of my depth here. Maybe other chess experts could weigh in. As an artist, he seems notable, pending a better translation and clear references. freshacconcispeaktome 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if not, I have posted to the Chess WikiProject, which presumably is what brought Pawnkingthree here. See my reply to Ruziklan above re his position as an artist. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the Handbook of chess composition kindly linked by you there are given all international title holders. Titles in chess composition are more rare than in the over-the-board chess. For getting FIDE Master title one have to gain at least 12 album points, i.e. to have at least 12 problems or 8 studies published in the FIDE Album. On pages 56-64 there are listed all composers having at least one composition in FIDE Album in whole history, and it is easy to see how few people are in double digits. Needless to say, most composers have never had any composition there. Ľudo has won many tournaments in magazines around globe and was repeatedly a member of team of Slovak national team in World Chess Composition Tournament, also winning silver medal in the 5th WCCT. Of course, any holder of GM or IM is more notable than FM, but that is longtime high level achievement anyway. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I was unsure how stringent the criteria were for FM level, that's all. If he's had tournament successes and had his work published in significant magazines then he would meet WP:N I guess.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Actually, I would not say having one's work published in significant magazines is of sufficient notability as even the most prestigious magazines (English The Problemist, French Phénix, Dutch Probleembad, German Die Schwalbe, Russian The Ural Problemist, American StrateGems,, ...) publish works of virtually anyone. Many composers publish regularly almost everywhere, nevertheless they got zero Album points as FIDE Album is about quality. And quantity of quality (i.e. enough works placed in FIDE Album) is needed to get official international title. Technically, you just have to make 12 excellent problems for FIDE master. But in reality it takes years of high level composing. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep: Still much more important in art than e.g. Verónica Ruiz de Velasco and more important in chess than myself :-) The composition chess titles are rare, much more than the "normal" titles, so I think that his is enough to be kept.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (Note to closing admin - I'm the nominator) on basis of work as a notable chess puzzle composer. And note to all - this is a terrific example of a deletion debate. Kudos to all of you who've contributed. I must remember to file away a link to here to show newbies. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weakish Keep for the chess more than the art. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems notable enough. Hobartimus (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Ruziklan and Ioannes Pragensis. Tankred (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, meets notability criteria, in my opinion. PS: I've rewritten most of the article to conform to Wiki usage and correct English, so if anyone is an expert on the topic I'd appreciate a look-over to make sure I didn't misrepresent anything accidentally. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep needs some clarification, per above..Modernist (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Notable in chess and art. (Caiaffa (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Weak Delete on the basis of the chess aspect alone (I am a member of the WP:CHESS). I understand the good points developed by Ruziklan, Pawnkingthree, Ioannes Pragensis. However, the fact that there are few titled chess composers is mostly explained by the fact that there are few chess composers on the whole. In my (subjective, of course) opinion, chess composition is much less notable than chess itself (see for example coverage in newspapers or books), so the fact that someone is titled in chess composition is not a strong enough point to make him notable. SyG (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Without chess composers, the endgame theory would be significantly worse. While I believe, that just a FM title shouldn't be enough for notability (IM probably, GM is always) there are many composers on the pre-album-era that never had this chance so on the pre-1950-era we'de have to make other guidelines anyway. For now I'd like to point out some composers that had greatest impact on the endgame theory: Without Nikolay Grigoriev we'd know almost nothing about pawn endgames (Mikhail Zinar also widely discovered virgin land in pawn studies but less endgames). André Chéron, while not being the most notable composer, composed lots of theoretical endgames and wrote the Lehr- und Handbuch der Endspiele (published in 3, later 4, parts), which is even now - after 40 years - the best book ever written about this. Georgian composers (Iuri Akobia, David Gurgenidze, Velimir Kalandadze, Vazha Neidze) greatly exhausted the endgames with rooks and pawns only. Alexey Troitzky showed the Troitzky line, which is most important in the (rare) endgame of two knights against a pawn. Of course, most of this has nothing to do with the actual discussion but wanted to point out that composers are more important than you thought. Also, another reason may be that compositions generally take up less space - you can show twenty on only four to five pages while showing twenty games may take up several dozen pages - why compositions are seemingly less in magazines etc. --Constructor 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree there are some chess composers without title that are still notable, especially in the oldest ones. My point was about the opposite: having the FM title is not enough to confer notability. Of course it is subjective, the notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
    And I also agree chess composition has brought a lot of knowledge to endgames, but I still think chess composition is less notable than chess "over-the-board", as can be proved by the number and importance of references/books/mentions/etc. SyG (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The one thing you do wrong is to take absolute numbers instead of percentage. :-) --Constructor 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, that we can use criterias from WP:ATHLETE here, too: Notable are "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Which is exactly what he did (FIDE Albums + member of the Slovak National Team).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As far as I understand, FIDE Albums are a "primary source" while WP:ATHLETE still requires some secondary sources, otherwise any obscure sport would become notable as soon as there is a federation. Are there some secondary sources for this person ? SyG (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I did not want to step in again as this could be understood as defending my personal friend, I think I can explain this. Primary sources in chess composition are books, journals, newspapers and websites where the compositions are originally published. FIDE Albums on the other hand are present selection of the best compositions published during three-years periods, selected in respective sections by panels of 3 expert judges + section directors. Problems published in primary sources are usually participating in primary competitions, for prizes, honourable mentions, commendations, places or whatever any (even obscure) organizer and/or judge deems suitable. But FIDE Album is something completely different, it is high-level secondary competition, where only best compositions can take points. To be sure, FIDE Albums get wide coverage in chess composition press and best results also coverage in columns in ordinary newspapers. Other official competitions are World Chess Composition Tournament (WCCT, competition between states, primary) and World Championship in Composing for Individuals (WCCI, secondary, i.e. for already published problems).
    On more general note - is it acceptable according to all usual rules if I answer and explain more than I did up to now? --Ruziklan (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanations. So I understand that the mentioned chess problems had previously been published elsewhere, so that the FIDE albums are secondary sources indeed. About your general note, I don't think there is ever a problem in Wikipedia with giving more explanations. SyG (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Keep He's also an artist and a political prisoner. As a political prisoner, he's not notable, but he might be borderline notable as an artist. On top of the chess business. :) Protonk (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - I'd echo these thoughts; borderline notability in at least two disciplines probably tips the balance in his favour. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: a FIDE FM Chess composer seems to be below the level previously rejected in the case of Catherine Lip. Ľudovít has more then has chess notability however and am prepared to accept this is a worthwhile wikipedia topic. SunCreator (talk) 16:43, 28 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 near-unanimity among respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Max[edit]

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

    Article pertains to a contestant from the first series of The Apprentice (UK). The relevant information in this article is already included at List of The Apprentice candidates (UK), and this individual has insufficient notability to warrant their own article. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see now that the first AfD went for delete. I can't say however, that this is a G4 speedy, since I don't know if the material is substantially similar Fritzpoll (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just checked and the current version is substantially different to the version that was AfD'ed ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK). Seaserpent85 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Max has established an increasing notability over and above his initial appearance in The Apprentice. His radio and TV regular appearances are more numerous than many other celebrities who have their own entries. Article may need a clean up and additional references but does not warrant a delete 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Has established notability as a presenter outside of the Apprentice. There's far too much topic-specific content here to merge into any other article. --Oakshade (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I posted this article as I listen to Max not only on LBC but TalkSPORT too. Many people would know him from his new roles rather than appearing in The Apprentice. Whilst it's appropriate for him to be cited in The Apprentice his body of work since then is of note. Anyone who has 3 of their own weekly radio shows and appears on Sky News and on Cable TV nearly every day deserves their own page? It would appear that deletion is requested because of a dislike of their style rather than because they do not warrant their own entry?! Butlermonkey 22:51 28th 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Linn American Inn of Court[edit]

    Richard Linn American Inn of Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I'm not sure this organization is notable enough. It's a group o judges and attorneys that meet once a month (since January 2007) to discuss things. Am I missing something? Damiens.rf 12:07, 24 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 near-unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). AfD is not cleanup, the content is not a copyvio, and the topic is notable as demonstrated by the arguments here. Skomorokh 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Convergence (telecommunications)[edit]

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

    Procedural; was tagged for prod but I don't think this obviously should be deleted. I'm putting it on AfD to solicit comments from anyone that might be more knowledgeable. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I'd have left the prod on this: it's speedily deletable. Some of the text seems to be be a copyright violation. In any case, it's patent nonsense, proposing a glib, meaningless plan to Make Money Fast in communications. It's also stealth spam, and the only references given are to an organization promoting this non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No vote on the current article, but this "neologism" has been the coming Next Big ThingTM in the telecoms industry since the late 1990s. It set off a telecoms gold rush that coincided with the Dot-Com bubble. There's plenty of WP:RS material available if someone wants to write a legitimate article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (and cleanup, possibly stubify) Convergence in terms of the telecom industry is an extremely notable topic. Actually, now that I read it, Gene93k's comment put it rather well. I admit I haven't investigated the claims of copywrite violations, obviously any instances should be fixed, likewise with anything that sounds like a get rich quick scheme (That didn't jump out at me when looking over the article). The content does not appear to be nonsense (I could be wrong), and the topic certainly isn't. I'll do some invistigating on the copyvio and article history and see what I can do to help. -Verdatum (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (and expand). I extensively contributed to this article. I work within the telecommunications sector, for one of the largest mobile operators in the world (not mentioned in the article). I can ensure you that convergence is one the hottest topics in the market. I chose to put some of the knowledge gained from experience into this, but unfortunately I haven't had the time to expand the article to the extent and quality I wish it had (yet). I have not breached copyright in any way shape or form. I am hoping other people who work in this business will have the opportunity to contribute to this. (Edtealdi (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Keep - this is an extremely important issue in the telecommunications industry and for technology in general. It affects everyone. This was a buzzword in the 1990s, now it's a fact of life. The article should be kept and improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Definitely not patent nonsense, as I get the sense of this and would like to read more. Arun Sarin (Vodafone CEO) was on Sky News in the UK talking about this subject just 2 weeks ago. Definitely not a meaningless plan to Make Money Fast either - just think about the effect of Talk Talk's free broadband offer in ~2006 in the UK market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.224.153 (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (and continue to expand). Telco convergence will be a dominant feature of this year's TM_Forum and is now a major module for a telco related MSc at University_College_London [1]. References to the TM_Forum are not a copyright violation as one of the goals of the TMF is the promotion of a common vocabulary for the benefit of all telco users. (85.205.248.229 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Keep. This is an important topic, if not easy one to write. The article is unfortunately not quite well written. The sourcing is a probably lesser issue. It would be great if we have a featured article on the topic. In any case, the deletion is definitely not a right editorial move. -- Taku (talk) 23:51, 28 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.

    References[edit]

    1. ^ MSc Technologies for Broadband Communications — Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Pryor[edit]

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

    Non-notable aspiring local politician in Chorley, in N-W England, whose only claim to notability is a claim that he is the youngest candidate in this year's local elections. There is only one reference to him, of 37 words in his local newspaper, so he fails WP:BIO's main notability test of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.

    WP:BIO#Politicians provides that candidates are not normally notable, and nor are local councillors, so he wouldn't be notable even if elected (unless his election generates a lot of in-depth coverage, which is unlikely for a local councillor).

    He may merit a footnote in Chorley Council election, 2008, but I suggest that even a merge or redirect to that article would be excessive for this degree of non-notability.

    Note that while the article asserts that Pryor is "the is the youngest candidate standing in a district council election in 2008", the local paper doesn't even say that he is the youngest candidate in Chorley, merely that "is hoping to become the local authority's youngest councillor". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2008/04/07/birmingham-city-council-election-candidates-revealed-65233-20731028/ has a local election candidate aged 18 in Birmingham, exact b'day unstated. Is there any evidence that Pryor is younger? PamD (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In the linked article the person "hoping to become the local authority's youngest councillor" is in fact someone else entirely. Pryor is not even mentioned..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. Ooops! You're right. It seems that he gets no coverage at all, not even the 37 words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (or indeed any coverage at all?). Also the article seems to be incorrect anyway as this states that the youngest candidate is standing in Poole in Dorset. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was 2007, as were most of the Google hits for "youngest candidate council election uk"! PamD (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, my mistake, have struck out that part of my comment but still stick by supporting deletion. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 24 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Landon Austin[edit]

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

    Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. Having a YouTube account and being a finalist in a relatively minor music competition doesn't make one notable. -- Ichabod (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable--Rjecina (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Maybe he'll be notable someday, but for now it looks like he's just a 19-year-old wannabe musician with a guitar and a YouTube account, who once was a finalist in a contest. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 30 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. There was a very clear consensus that this page should be kept. It is also, incidentally, particularly well sourced. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of eruvin[edit]

    Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Delete. Bstone (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Which aspect of NOTDIRECTORY are you saying this falls foul of? --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3 and 5. Also WP:NOT#FAQ 4. Bstone (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's plainly not for business purposes, nor is it a cross-categorisation. And NOT#FAQ seems entirely irrelevant to this list. In terms of NOTDIRECTORY, each of the constituent parts forms a coherent part of a notable topic, and the list is extensively referenced from RS, demonstrating notability comprehensively. I therefore can't help but disagree with the nomination and will have to opt for keep (below). --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your RS argument, I quote from WP:NOT, "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Bstone (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's as may be, but you've not presented a valid argument for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an indiscriminate listing of information which has no encyclopedic value. If I am wrong please tell me why it has encyclopedic value and why it is notable. Bstone (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's indiscriminate about it? --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per my arguments above. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per arguments presented at previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities with eruv. M0RD00R (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Is not indescriminate, but has very specific criteria for inclusion, and the subject is notable. Just because it's a list of places doesn't make it a directory. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. List articles need more than just links. Otherwise, this falls afoul of the Wikipedia is not a directory policy. If some work could be done on this page to make it have some text, then I would reconsider my opinion. Unless it has a major rewrite, it's a policy violation. Corvus cornixtalk 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —M0RD00R (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because: (a) It's a key partner to the Eruv article providing real-world examples. (b) It cites 192 reliable sources and references! (c) It is a legitimate part of Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures, and (d) is most certainly not a "directory" of anything as it satisfies all the criteria of WP:Lists. IZAK (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, normally I'd prefer to see simple lists converted into categories if possible; however, the extensive sourcing in this case would be difficult to accommodate unless a blurb about each eruv were added to each article in the list and sourced and each associated article added to an eruvin category (which is still another option, imo, if someone wants to go through all that trouble converting the list). --MPerel 16:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Though the article would be more informative if it were organized by the date each eruv was created, it still has a great wealth of information that justifies an article. Jon513 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep An encyclopedic list is a good encyclopedia article--YY (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Valid member of Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures and much better sourced than most of the others — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems to be a classic Information-type list as per WP:LIST Avi (talk) 20:00, 29 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. Fram (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Straker[edit]

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

    Player fails notabiltiy at WP:Bio#Athletes as has not played in a fully-pro league yet. Although his current team are promoted for next season, keeping said article would be crystal balling Jimbo[online] 11:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Recreate when/if he plays in a fully-pro league. GiantSnowman (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. BanRay 11:54, 27 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 ATL. Present article is just a translation of a word (which is Wiktionary material.) Redirect is useful since many people don't use the shift-key on the internet. (OK, that was really my opinion, but since it's not at odds with any of the opinions in the discussion, I'll close this instead of just "voting".) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Atl[edit]

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

    "Atl" is just the Aztec word for "water". It isn't the name of a god. Ptcamn (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect to the acronym/dab page ATL instead of deleting. Agreed there's no cause for an article here. One day, should really go through all the similar microstubs in the gods/goddesses cats we have that seem to be sourced only from godchecker.com & similar highly unreliable sites; I suspect more than a few of these are likewise just misinterpretations. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:47, 24 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, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexdavid[edit]

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

    Does not show Wikipedia:Notability. Triwbe (talk) 09:59, 24 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The McKinnon Worker[edit]

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

    I tagged this for a speedy as nonsense and then saw that a speedy had already been declined. There may actually be a college newsletter with this title, but there is no evidence of notability, and the facetious tone of the article means it should be deleted as nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • commentthe previous speedy decline was because I'd marked it as Spam and apparently it didn't meet that criteria.I'm currently trying to ascertain what criteria I should have marked it as. Maybe vandalism instead of spam but, either way the article fails our inclusion criteria on notability and COI and probably a number of other places so should be deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DELETE, although the article doesn't fit any speedy criteria, it does fail WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:COI. It also doesn't assert any notability through references or third-party citations for notability.--Sallicio 09:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DO NOT DELETE THIS, IT IS OBVIOUSLY FINE, JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT "THINK" IT IS VALID WHY DELETE IT? YOUR JUST BEING SELFISH ARROGANT PRICKS! MANY PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THIS TO SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT OUR 'NEWSLETTER. WHY NOT JUST LET IT GO? WHOS IT GOING TO HURT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.33.192 (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment I've already addressed the above issue of why deletion on the author's talk page. Please go ahead and make yourself familiar with some of the policies of Wiki before making comments like the above. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The McKinnon Worker is the world's best piece of writing ever created". Speaks for itself. Delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Strong Delete - absolutely zero reliable sources to indicate any sort of notaility, and the article in its entirety has no salvageable content even if it were to be notable -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nonsense article, no showing of notability, and I couldn't find sources. I agree though, that it doesn't fit the speedy criteria; this is the right place for it. Xymmax (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry bout putting this here but, I'm looking through the CSD stuff and still can't see where this doesn't count as "spam". No where that I've seen so far says they have to be trying to "sell" a product. Please someone help me work this out. My talkpage is more than available to help discuss so I don't make the same mistake again. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete complete and total crap. JuJube (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment/Speedy Delete Further to some of my above comments/questions I believe it meets the criteria for speedy under A7. As it is "an article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The reason being it is a student run newspaper (organisation?). Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 20-Mule-Team Delete: A sterling case of WP:BULLSHIT as well as WP:NFT. No, in fact, no one is going to want to see this so-called "information."  RGTraynor  15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment For my own amusement, I cleaned up the article, so many of these scathing reviews no longer match the current revision. It's obviously still not notable, so much so, that I don't even feel the need to vote delete, there's no chance this article will survive. -Verdatum (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The McKinnon newsletter a.k.a - "The McKinnon Worker" is not advertising, nonsense or spam. The McKinnnon Newsletter is a newsletter run by students at Mckinnon Secondary College. I'm sorry you feel as if it is Spam. We have taken the liberty of fixing up the page. I hope you favour our adjustments, 'Wikipedia' is our best source to inform others, so please do not delete our homepage. Sorry for the misunderstanding and that our editors writing is not to be misconstrued as nonsense. Thankyou. JaackSCH (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not your "homepage". Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. You want a homepage, you will need to find somewhere else to go. Wikipedia is not here to help entities make a name for themselves. Wikipedia is for after that has already happened. Wikipedia is also not a search engine. People will not "find you" here unless they already know what they're looking for or hit the random button. Again, not for what you think you're using Wikipedia for. You need to look elsewhere. DarkAudit (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This is a page to inform our colleges about the newsletter, we are not hoping people will 'stumble' across this page. We are trying to create a student run newsletter and inform our other students. obviously this means nothing to you, you are not involved. but Wikipedia is the most convenient way for the students to inform and run our newsletter, this is why I deem it a ‘homepage’. I do not appreciate why an attempt for students to create their own paper can be harassed with such scrutiny. Let the students inform their fellow students about the newsletter, apologies for any inconvenience. Thankyou. JaackSCH (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are guidelines to what an article needs. There are guidelines to what Wikipedia's mission is. What you are trying to do does not meet those guidelines. Wikipedia does not exist to promote products of any kind. If you intend to use Wikipedia as a primary source to let people know the newsletter exists, then the article will surely be deleted. That is not what Wikipedia is here to do. I AM involved because I am an editor on the English Wikipedia. The task at hand is to vet articles against the guidelines set forth for notability, reliable sources, and spam, amongst many others. It is clear that the article, especially given your statements here, do not acceptably pass those guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can appreciate JaackSCH's civil tone (in stark contrast with the adolescent rantings earlier), but DarkAudit is 110% correct. See: what Wikipedia is not.--Sallicio 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur. No one here is preventing you or your cronies from creating a newsletter. No one here is preventing you from informing your fellow students about it. You just cannot do so on Wikipedia. Like other editors, I urge you to review the various links provided (as well as WP:FIVE, a good place to start) so you can gain an understanding of Wikipedia policy, procedures and guidelines.  RGTraynor  14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't the place for articles like this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete--a newsletter?--come on, it should've been speedied long ago--and don't forget to block its creator for inappropriate user name. Qworty (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: How long does it take for an administrator to delete this?--Sallicio 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDs typically run five days.  RGTraynor  05:01, 28 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, and per article's creator's request (the last !voter here). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Last Drug[edit]

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

    Appears to be a student/unrecognised independent film, and WP:CRYSTAL applies as the notability of it and that it may (uncited from third party RS) be the first CC licenced film is unknown. SGGH speak! 09:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, was not able to locate any sources about this film that were sufficiently independent of the subject. Probably not notable just yet. WP:CRYSTAL also seems relevant. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read the guidelines I agree that this should be deleted. If and when the film is released the page can be recreated if appropriate.--DFJA (talk) 10:23, 25 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 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eleftherios Papadopoulos[edit]

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

    Notability not shown. Main source appears to be WP:SPS. Triwbe (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Appears to be the recreation of an article that was previously speedied. Edward321 (talk) 22:11, 27 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shankers Cup[edit]

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

    Contested PROD. Original reason was "Not a notable competition, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day." A google search for "Shankers Cup" gets four hits, including two at WP. The website http://www.shankers.com/dev appears to describe an informal golf tournament organised by friends. PROD was removed on the basis that "the annual compitition exists, as is apparent by the content of the page", however, no third party sources are given. Delete as non-notable competition. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Not notable, as per earlier commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete Although kind of interesting a google search only returns the Cups webpage and wikipedia, so notabilty is not established. Blahblah5555 (talk) 05:02, 25 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. Fram (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    U.S. Youth Corps[edit]

    U.S. Youth Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nom. This was PRODed but I'm really unsure about it. Reason for PROD was, "Non-notable youth organization with no coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I almost endorsed the PROD since it is a WP:COI [30] but I'm not convinced this would be entirely uncontroversial. As this is a procedural nom, I am neutral at this time, but may change depending on the outcome of this discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep'. While I really don't like the idea of the subject, sources are available, although they're scant, few and far between, and nowhere near enough to justify an article of this size. Celarnor Talk to me 09:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check the dates. Those articles are almost 50 years old, a completely different organization. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I didn't actually read the article in depth; with similar ideals and functions (at least sort of), I just assumed it had been some kind of long-running thing. Apparently, it went under a different name until 2007; prior to that, it was "Stargate International"(!?!), and there's nothing on that either. Celarnor Talk to me 09:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:AB => WP:COI. We don't really know what this guy is talking about, and although I find it strongly unappealing, I suspect the emphasis on structure would be an advertisement to someone in the market. In any case, it doesn't pass WP:CORP. The first few paragraphs really seem to imply it's a for-profit operation, although the vagueness is shady. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, it's not a military camp for downtrodden yoots. Haworth is 17-18 years old himself, and he's been "founding" these organizations since he was 13 whilst moving around the country. Can't blame him for that, but this organization is guaranteed nonexistent. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what I figured it was; the news sources made sense to me considering the name and lead of the article, so that's why I said keep.
    • Delete. No sources available, COI, no assertable notability. Potentially a hoax. Celarnor Talk to me 09:28, 24 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. Fram (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicky Holland[edit]

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

    Contested prod (removed by IP without explanation). Football player that fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (the Welsh Premier League has an average attendance of 276 and only two full time clubs) and consensus is that youth caps (U-17) do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It quickly fails WP:ATHLETE - no professional experience. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. LLanelli AFC are the current champions of the Welsh Premier League. Can they be regarded as at the highest level of their amateur sport? Ha! (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Welsh Premier League does contain two fully professional teams, therefore it cannot be said to be an amateur competition. It is of similar standing to England's Football Conference, and dozens of players who have never risen above that competition have been deleted via AfD ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any examples of Welsh football teams (and players) that are both amateur and are regarded as being at the height of their amateur sport? Ha! (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the interpretation of that clause. Some people at AfD claim that it is not relevant, as football is a professional sport and the clause only applies to sports which are solely amateur. Some claim that the "highest level of amateur sports" refers to the highest level in the world, which I guess would be the Olympic Games. Others claim that it refers to the highest level of amateur competition within a given country. In Wales the highest level of football at which all players are completely amateur would most likely be some county-level league where the average number of spectators at a game is about 10, and I think you'd struggle to argue for the inclusion of players from that sort of league on WP....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, that clause is open to a few interpretations. I come across a few of these footballers when checking new pages and I'm never quite sure what to do with them. I suppose really this is the wrong place to find out though, I'll dig around elsewhere.Ha! (talk) 12:47, 28 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. I think User:Nabla nailed this - the entire notability per WP:BIO here hangs on one obscure documentary program; yet even though the subject appeared in the program, he was not the reason for it; the documentary was about steroid abuse, with him being the exemplar for the problems that can happen. Black Kite 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregg Valentino[edit]

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

    Unencyclopedic, advert, referenced with primary sources, a MySpace page, and body building websites, no independent third party coverage. Notability may only be derived from self-aggrandizing claims, and steroids arrest (which was mainly referenced by the Daily Show, National Enquirer, and Howard Stern, to name a few). Fails WP:Athlete and WP:Bio. MrPrada (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Does not pass WP:RS outright. Obliterate... POOF! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. May qualify for speedy depending on how similar the current article is to the version discussed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gregg Valentino. Shawisland (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The previous version is very similar, yet this one includes the metion to the documentary. So I think it is not a straight forward speedy. - Nabla (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are several sources, but all primary. Gets less plausible the longer you look. Thanks, Shawisland! Potatoswatter (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.
    • Delete, I actually caught The Man Whose Arms Exploded, a documentary about this fellow late on TV one night. While interesting, being the subject of a generally unremarkable and non-notable documentary is probably not enough to tip you over the notability line. The problems the editors above me have cited as per reliable sources are also quite worrying. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep Sorry to contradict my fellow editors, but Valentino is somewhat famous (or infamous, depending on your opinion) among bodybuilding enthusiasts. The fact he was the subject of a TV documentary would, by itself, suggest some degree of notability (I politely disagree with the arlier comment that the documentary was not notable). The article, as it stands today, needs a substantial rewrite. But I am not supportive of a deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Was the subject of a TV documentary. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the subject of a TV documentary is a sure sign of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The documentary it self may be notable, if it was reviewed in reliable third party publications (which it was not). But the subject of the documentary? Where is the guideline for that? The borderline claim to notability here is that at one point, this guy had the largest arms in the world (and they are freaky looking, no doubt) but there are no reliable third party sources to verify this. Even if there were, I am not convinced that warrants inclusion in its own biography. But without these sources, we have nothing, just that documentary, which was about steroids, not about Valentino, he just appeared in it. MrPrada (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - above editor is also the nominator - Nabla (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The documentary demonstrates the notability of the subject (if the documentary was independent & reliably published). There is no need for the documentary itself to be notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Being the subject of a documentary is in fact being the subject of a secondary source independent of the topic. --Oakshade (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per MrPrada. - Nabla (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Subject of documentary = notable per secondary source coverage. MrPrada, please do not "vote" as well as nominate the AfD, it may confuse whoever tries to read consensus here. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You got the "equation" wrong. It is: Subject of documentary = presumed notable per secondary source coverage. This looks like precisely one of the cases where the person is not notable (WP-wise). I recall a documentaries featuring, say, a young boy that was a cow shepperd here in Portugal; another featuring a camel breeder in some northern Africa nation; even a few featuring a specific jaguar. Is that boy, that man, that jaguar, WP-notable? Definetely no. The real subject of the documentary was poor portuguese boys in that area in general; camel breeders in general, jaguars in general. The documentary featured a specific case, so that it becomes more appealing to the viewer, opposite of a "cold" academic work, it show busines, TV marketing. Does not immediatelly give notability for the actual person. - Nabla (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. WP:N is met. Nothing wrong with referencing content to primary sources. Independence is third party sources is sufficient, the subject didn't fund them. The subject also happens to have an extraordinary claim of notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy deleted (Author blanked the page, no other significant editors).

    Bupenda[edit]

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

    This is an autobiographical article about an entirely unremarkable young man who does not appear to have achieved anything of note. He has been to school and to college and he has worked on some school projects and likes a bit of creative writing in his spare time. nancy (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. The long list of references are web-sites of every institution he has been near, but give no evidence that he himself is notable. An article promoting his in-progress novel is also up for AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Idle hands. Added Blind Beauty to this debate. We should be hearing something if he's the master debater he says he is. Potatoswatter (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, would not appear to meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy, or as a second choice, delete per nom. Note that the article started out as the creator's user page, but was moved to the mainspace. It should probably be moved back. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have tagged for speedy deletion (CSD G7) as the author has blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:25, 26 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blind Beauty[edit]

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

    Promo page about non-existent novel. Henry Merrivale (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per absence of reliable sources to demonstrate that this work even exists let alone to prove any notability. nancy (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BK and WP:COI - the article is by the book's author, whose autobiographical article (also up for AfD here) says that he is still writing it. JohnCD (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, given the utter lack of sources, at best the novel is hyper-obscure and thus non-notable, at worst this is a hoax. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without prejudice for recreation once it is published and gets noted by reviewers, which is our definition of notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 24 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Alternative (newspaper)[edit]

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

    Prod tag removed, so here we are. Unreferenced, nn underground student paper with a single issue, no press/sources[31]. Shawisland (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom. Article consists entirely of high school attitude-posturing. Sorry kids, we don't care if you say your school administration tried to shut you down, and your own MySpace is not a reference. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Totally, utterly non-notable. Even if they may one day be notable in the future (which I doubt), WP:CRYSTAL applies. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy delete, fails to establish notability, also, WP:SOAP issues. MrPrada (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, high school newspapers are not usually notable. This one appears to be no exception. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Save, Why do you waste your time citing articles with at least some substance? It seems that one in every few articles I read is littered with inappropriate photos of the male anatomy. Try to remedy these issues before attacking those which are a lesser threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bman1225cal (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "There's other stuff that's worse" is not a justification for keeping something that's totally, utterly non-notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:47, 24 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. Fram (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decrepitude[edit]

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

    Unnotable neoglism? Nonsense? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Either? Both? Does it matter, per WP:DICT? Someone needs edjamacation. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, seems to be trying to be a Devil's WP:DICDEF. Obviously it's a real word and it is not being used as a neologism. This would be like having an article named Crap and starting out, Crap is how many people describe the global economy today..... --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not to mention that the sources do not corroborate the claimed usage. WP:HOAX or joke article at best. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that you are right. Pierre Vanpunstut is a joke name. Vanpunstut is not a real name. And just in case there is any doubt, I live in Vancouver and I've never heard the term used that way. So let's delete this thing before the decrepitude sets in here. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, a fairly obvious coatrack article pushing a PoV. The word decrepitude is not a neologism, or at least is well-formed. I'd suggest a redirect to obsolescence, which is probably what anyone who linked it or searched it has in mind. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Decrepitude has a well established dicdef as "weakness; infirmity." Too weakly sourced to satisfy WP:N.The title word does not appear in the online portion of the 3 refs. If it is in some non-viewable portion proponents of the article should cite the page number, to show this is verifiable. Edison (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notability whatsoever and per the above statements. Zenlax T C S 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NEO. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I agree with the previous observations. This article does not seem salvageable. AltioraPeto (talk) 18:42, 28 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 CSD:G7 nancy (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pook[edit]

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

    Fails WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment AfD tends to take effort on the part of a number of people, so please post articles here only if WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD fail. This page is going away by SPEEDY (author consented to deletion) but also you should have PROD'ed it before getting here. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:38, 24 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. Fram (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alessandra Rubi Streignard Villarreal[edit]

    Alessandra Rubi Streignard Villarreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable. Apparently no page on Spanish WP. None of the links go to anything specific except IMDb which may be self-written. I have prodded the article but the notice was removed without the article being improved. It was started by an IP address. Kleinzach (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Either she has a psycho secret admirer, or she wrote a tell-all autobiography. The first thing mentioned is a suicide attempt?? Potatoswatter (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I am a huge fan of this girl, and I do not believe her page should be delted,I would like for "Kleinzach" to stop with the personal attacks, she is very popular here in the Southern States especially in the Spanish speaking community. Hello, if the IMDB article were self writen wouldn't it suggest that she were crazy and self absorbed, and if so, why wouldn't she have put a photo of herself. A friend of mine has several photos of her at a charity event in Boston, but I won't post them because he owns them, I will ask if he can post them. I am not trying to be rude, but do you all have nothing better to do, aside from picking apart people who have accomplished more than you. As for the suicide thing, it was mentioned a few times on El Rojo Vivo on Telemundo, I saw it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.116.60 (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC) As well, initially it was started by an IP adress, but I then created an account for modifying it more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.116.60 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) — 75.16.116.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Reply: I suggest you (1) create a WP account, (2) add references to the article. I have tagged this article in the past with notability concerns - without getting any response. The notability notice states "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability." If you can do that the Afd can be withdrawn. I'd also suggest you rewrite it so it reads like a proper encyclopedic article. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP or Restart I think this article should be kept around! I'm not a huge fan, but I do admire her, I've seen her in the Nun, I too saw the report of her attempted suicide on Telecinco in Madrid. The problem with this girl is probably exposure, she backs out of a lot of her obligations so no one wants to work with her, she's been in a lot of gossip magaz, but I think her most popular was Vogue Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaniard95 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC) — Spaniard95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Delete. The article as currently written has serious WP:BLP problems in that it is virtually unsourced. That said, her film and television credits may be sufficient to justify an article, if more sources can be found to establish notability. If kept, the article should probably be moved to Alessandra Streignard or whatever the most common form of her name is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Her IMDb credits seem to be pretty minor. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, appears to be yet another disparaging gossip article on a non-notable person. Serious BLP issues. KleenupKrew (talk) 08:46, 28 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 Bad faith nomination from banned user and has some sources. Clearly a keep and it doesn't require an AFD to decide whether to merge or redirect an article so that can be left to editorial judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lifestyle guru[edit]

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

    Unsourced, invented term? Couchbeing (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. There are four sources, each of which mention the term, and at least two of which are about the concept. The concept appears notable and well-sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the nominator as a sock of banned Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep per sources and banned nominator. Celarnor Talk to me 06:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NEO. Several sources do not establish such a term. In any case, isn't lifestyle guidance what normal gurus are supposed to do? Guru is to consultant as czar is to administrator among today's conservative-hippie trash. The only folks who call their consultants gurus are those who need to hire someone to fix their lifestyle! Potatoswatter (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. For one thing, our article guru is not about the debased Western concept, but real spiritual gurus in various Asian traditions. For another, this is a valid concept, even if most of us turn up our noses at the idea. From Deepak Chopra to Oprah, the celebrity life-fixer is a fixture in our culture. (Hey, I can remember when Martha Stewart was barely famous.) Today being a lifestyle guru is, like Martha Stewart, being a corporation unto oneself. Not all sources will use this specific term, of course. But I can't think of a better one. (If we do have an appropriate merge target, bring it up.) `--Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Potatoswatter, and because this article has no potential for being anything other than either a WP:DICDEF or a WP:COATRACK for criticism of invididual people and trends. Use of the term in sources does not establish that this term is a notable subject for an encyclopedia article. Belongs in a dictionary of slang terms, not here. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Coaching#Life coaching and redirect. This is certainly no neologism, and the question at stake doesn't concern the exact title - it is whether we should have an article on this subject. And how does this have no potential for being anything other than a WP:DICDEF or a WP:COATRACK? This a a subject which is frequently covered in the media and all of those vomit-inducing "self-help" books. I was going to suggest moving to Life coaching, but I've just seen that that's a blue link that redirects to Coaching#Life coaching where there is already some content on this subject. If that section then gets undue weight in the article it can be spun off to a separate article called Life coaching. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conditional Agree with Phil Bridger that this topic should have an article, just not under this name which is at best a slang term and at worst intended to disparage and stereotype the subject. Topic is already covered in Coaching#Life coaching. Do not agree, however, that a statement like 'all of those vomit-inducing "self-help" books' really adds anything to the discussion. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I see no indication that the use is specific, the term was used as far as I can see as a deliberately non standard phrase for purposes of variety in wording. DGG (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Although the motivations of the nom may be questionable, PhilBridger brings in an astute observation. This belongs in the Life coaching section of Coaching - indeed, life coaching should probably be its own article. Pastordavid (talk) 18:28, 30 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 - group for which no notability asserted) by Tiptoety. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfect Garages[edit]

    Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, as it doesn't even assert WP:CORP notability at all. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, possibly a good-faith contribution from a user unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures, but quite plainly a non-notable local business. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:41, 24 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. Fram (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloomhead[edit]

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

    Previously speeded under A7 and has now been created, so off to AfD this article with no claims of notability, covering an organization with no significant secondary-source coverage, goes. Badger Drink (talk) 05:34, 24 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. A note about the nomination: "Not notable" is fairly vague, and though I won't go as far as the WP:ATA essay which deems such arguments invalid, I will say that it does not contribute much to the discussion and can easily be refuted by someone with something more specific. In this case it doesn't matter much, but in the future it is advisable to delve a bit deeper to make a more detailed argument. In this case the fact that the topic is from an unpublished work (as pointed out by Quasirandom) and is therefore original research and unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Twixel Lore[edit]

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

    Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • article is also copied at Twixel Fairies— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbly (talk • contribs)
    • I have WP:PRODed both articles. Discussion should be terminated or suspended as deletion may be uncontested, and in any case the other article needs to be appended here. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe AfDs take precidence over PRODs, though. In any case, delete -- fictional race from an unpublished work, which doesn't meet WP:FICT. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By whatever means necessary, delete this patent nonsense and its sister article. Qworty (talk) 09:52, 26 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 and recreate as redirect. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    English media[edit]

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

    Unencyclopedic, not article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, just short of {{db-nonsense}}, I suppose, but obviously not anything in article form. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the mainspace is for articles, not idle observations on what you see in the papers one day. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Speedy delete Patent WP:NONSENSE Gary King (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as suggested by Nate. I don't quite understand all the comments about this being nonsense. It is a perfectly comprehensible and verifiable statement, but under the wrong title and already covered better at Bristol Rovers F.C.. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 26 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardboiled Magazine[edit]

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

    Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Advertisement that cites no secondary sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OBVIOUS DELETE, absolutely no evidence of notability, no attempt at references or third-party citations. Fails miserably, WP:N, WP:INC. Seems like a self-promoting advert. Candidate for {{db-inc}} deletion. --Sallicio 05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as not asserting notability and blatant spam. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 05:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questions here I am the creator of this page but i am not sure about what i'm suppose to do to make this page not an article for deletion. Please do state clearly what I am missing or have added carelessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Project2yolk (talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Demonstrate that reliable, independent sources have taken notice of this magazine. Usual way to do this is to find e.g. some newspaper articles or academic papers which discuss the magazine at length (not articles printed in the magazine itself, or brief mentions in laundry lists). Web forums, random Geocities pages, etc. don't count as reliable sources.
    Anyway even if you find such sources, the page itself may be kept, but other Wikipedians will likely rewrite the text from the ground up. There's too much obvious conflict of interest here, with long tangents that aren't related to the magazine itself, and the selection of facts and the language clearly designed to promote the magazine itself ("An online digital magazine like Hardboiled has more benefits for advertisers that a print magazine simply cannot do") rather than act as an objective, third-party reporting of the facts about the magazine. cab (talk) 10:26, 24 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 Deleted per WP:CSD#G1 Pedro :  Chat  07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christianity (Other veiws)[edit]

    Christianity (Other veiws) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This one is a bit of a puzzle. Not quite speediable, this is nonetheless not a good article, nor is it what I would consider a good candidate for an article. If there was anything relevent here, I'd suggest merging with Christianity, but as it stands, it's borderline nonsense. The creator states that he hopes a certain section will "become a discussion area" - which probably sums it up in a nutshell. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Badger Drink (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete this article is nonsense. JuJube (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rofl. Then delete. What's borderline about it? Potatoswatter (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lolwut? Speedy delete as nonsense. It's beyond borderline. Celarnor Talk to me 06:25, 24 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. Fram (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative Kids[edit]

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

    Personal essay. Original research. Corvus cornixtalk 04:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • proded. This is likely to be uncontroversial. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, unverifiable (and incorrect, depending on which decade you're talking about) original research. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete, personal essay/opinion piece. B.Wind (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As pure point of view pushing, could probably have been speedy deleted as an attack page. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:15, 30 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. WP:NOT#NEWS, this is clearly a trivial news story that will be forgotten soon. Black Kite 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonesville Church of God sign controversy[edit]

    Jonesville Church of God sign controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a news report about a message put on a church sign for one week or so. It did get some media attention. But there is no evidence of lasting importance, or any real controversy. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, you learn something new every day (especially on Wikipedia). In that case, delete, with possible unrelated rewrite at WikiNews. MrPrada (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, it is very relevant. You might also want to reread NOT#Original Research. Right now, the article is just a smear on the church, with rampant OR and synthesis and no references in the article. It does not even mention the church's explanation for the sign. MrPrada (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This is strictly a very minor news story. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete - Yes, it slightly meets notability criteria, but it doesn't seem much more than trivial coverage. Grsztalk 18:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, barely registered on the national radar. Isn't the Osama/Obama thing pretty old by now? --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think a sentence in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is a good idea. That article already has a section on the various slurs and rumors against Senator Obama that have taken place. If people want to know more they can click on the refs that would be given. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, it's referenced and keeping it is not hurting wikipedia in any way. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that its articles about little things such as this that sets us apart from other sources. Acer (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as well presented article with sufficient sourcing; citing newspapers does not make someone or something citing the newspapers also a newspaper. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is a newspaper article dressed up as a encyclopedia entry. Way too thin a gruel to warrant an entire article, which grotesquely exaggerates the significance of this insignificant "controversy". Quale (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is something that will be lost and forgotten relatively quickly. Rev. Melber (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)RevMelber[reply]
    • Sure it will be, if the article is deleted. But imagine historians combing through Wikipedia 500 years from now. What a fascinating window this will provide them. Cryptographic hash (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case it might be better to mention the incident in the Obama campaign article. How is someone going to find this one among the millions of others? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - it meets Wikipedia's written standard for inclusion - what more is needed? It was covered in both national print and television. Why was it important enough to be covered nationally? Because it points to something bigger--as the article mentions, "The sign message brought national attention because it was seen as an indication of rural American white ignorance and unconscious racism in the Southern United States" in the current day. That's important, not trivial. Cryptographic hash (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that these are important topics. I might add "Racial segregation in American Christianity" if we don't have an article on that already. However, the fact that this article points to those topics is not enough to keep it since WP has a policy against every passing news story being the topic of an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. It meets Wikinews' standards for inclusion. On wikipedia, it would be acceptable as a part of an article on the Church, if the church itself were notable. However, it is not. It would be borderline as a subsection of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 piece, but certainly does not warrant a content fork daughter article. 01:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    The Obama campaign article already has a section on negative rumors and slurs, so a sentence on this (cited of course) would fit in fine. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Trivial news story. TheslB (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I was about to close this one now, but after reviewing it, I think that a close based on my opinion might be controversial, so I'll instead enter my opinion as a regular, and let someone else decide. There are clearly good faith calls here for keeping the article, but I feel that they don't take into account the main concern: that this article is of a relatively minor news story, and that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Of course, Wikipedia does cover some news events, those which are of major significance, affected a lot of lives, received widespread, long-lasting and world-wide attention, or which have an enduring impact on society. In this case I cannot see any of the usual reasons for covering an event in an encyclopedia are in place. It is largely about a sermon in a local church, and it is not a major part of the presidential campaign. The attention here seems to have spanned over about a week, and there doesn't seem to be much impact in the aftermath. Pretty much the only impact on the religious community was the central Church of God distancing itself from the sign. The keep votes are not unreasonable in pointing out that the article is well-referenced, but I find them unconvincing since news stories by definition have references in the form of news articles, so that does not seem to be a reasonable bar for deciding if a news story is encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't use the phrase "distanced themselves from" to describe the denomination's reactions. They were never close so no need to create distance. They just informed us of their church policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see evidence of any "extensive commentary." Everyone seems to agree that the message was stupid, and inappropriate for a church sign. I'm sure Senators Clinton and McCain think so, as does the church headquarters which seem to have ordered it to come down. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources, no notability, no sources available Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Manny Grado[edit]

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

    No references provided or found to support assertions of notability. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: The author has just been indef blocked for causing disruption over at the Miley Cyrus article. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:ATHLETE notability criteria, as an amateur who has not competed at the top level. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:32, 24 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dalegarden[edit]

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

    It would appear to have no notability at all whatsoever having a population of slightly more than one thousand Johnzw (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep All communities are notable by default. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Just a neighborhood, no official statistics. My bad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per consensus that populated areas are generally notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete but not for given reason. The problem is that it doesn't appear in the given reference. Would appear to be a neighborhood of also AfD'd Dale, but without official statistics. 1000 by the way is not small. (And is not given as the population of this place.) Potatoswatter (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, Potatoswatter; I hadn't noticed that [possibly because I don't speak norwegian]. I endorse this idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzw (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A village is not a neighborhood (unless Norwegian uses the same word for both), and all villages are notable. A Google search for Dalegarden limited to sites with the .no top level domain, http://www.google.com/search?q=Dalegarden+site%3Ano , generates lots of hits, which suggests that Dalegarden has an identity distinct from Dale. And Google Maps shows it: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Dalegarden&sll=61.143235,9.09668&sspn=7.179311,29.882813&ie=UTF8&ll=60.581234,5.799108&spn=0.007125,0.029182&z=15&iwloc=addr --Eastmain (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Existence establishes notability here. Google Maps certainly shows Dalegarden (possibly up to a few dozen families in South Dale) and Google returns 85 pages for "Dalegarden Vaksdal site:no". (The initial estimate is higher, and not all 85 pages are relevant.) So although notability is established, we will have a serious problem finding a Norwegian editor interested in writing up the unincorporated southern third of a small town with no statistics. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Here are some data points which argue against notability: There is no article for Dalegarden in the Bokmal or Nynorsk Wikipedias. A search for Dalegarden at Statens Kartverk, the government mapping agency, yields nothing. I still think all villages are notable, though. --Eastmain (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the Norwegian Wikipedias, that doesn't weigh much because these Wikipedias are very poor. They can't be expected to have articles. Punkmorten (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For contrast, consider querying Google Maps for Lick, California, a small-yet-named neighborhood in a larger settlement. Then try finding other records of it. (Hint: Lick Observatory is 22 miles away.) Then, see Foosland, Illinois, which is smaller than Dalegarden or Lick, yet is a distinct place. (Foosland recently defeated a referendum to strip their incorporation.) I suspect that Dalegarden is a common name, giving a "halo effect" similar to Lick. Unfortunately, we have no information on the status or boundaries of Dalegarden or Lick, so the best we can do is probably redirect. As a final example, I live in Historic Urbana, part of Urbana, Illinois. This tidbit is meaningless aside from some zoning regulations, although it is a precisely defined place with precise (albeit local) statistics. The notable things about Historic Urbana are well covered in the article on the City of Urbana. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As you may not know: While it may be part of an urban area, that doesn't make it a neighborhood of said area. For instance, the urban area Oslo covers many surrounding municipalities in its entirety, still, the municipalities in question are undoubtedly distinct entities. The same thing applies here, the places have enough geographical distance to constitute distinct entities. A map shows you the difference between the two places. Punkmorten (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean it's a suburb. The arguments against are:
    1. It doesn't have its own statistics, which we can access
    2. Its name is clearly derived from that of the larger community, suggesting a mere division
    3. The scale in distance and population is much less than Oslo. There may be no commerce at all in Dalegarden. We just don't know. Dale is not an urban area, either.
      • In any case, you are most likely totally wrong in calling it a "municipality". Potatoswatter (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I never called Dalegarden a municipality, nor a suburb. Suburb doesn't fit, it's a small village with its own history. I don't understand what "a mere division" is supposed to mean. Of course Dale is an urban area, please read the existing source if commenting on an article. Punkmorten (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, real, verifiable locations are notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep, if this was an American location, we simply would not see it listed here.--Berig (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, real place. Corvus cornixtalk 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as as an inhabited separately named settlement. I was interested to see that the fact that its name seems to be derived from that of another place is being used as an argument to delete. What implications does that have for New York? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 26 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 all. Fram (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ajilimójili sauce[edit]

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

    Also nominating the following recipe articles:

    Pique verde boricua‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Pique criollo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Mojito isleño (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Picadillo a la puertorriqueña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Per WP:NOTHOWTO (they are all just recipes). nneonneo talk 03:49, 24 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 (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that all towns are inherently notable. WilliamH (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

    Dale, Hordaland[edit]

    Dale, Hordaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    the article itself admits "dale is a small place" it appears utterly unnotable Johnzw (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep, all real places are notable. See Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Places Corvus cornixtalk 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep it's the capital of some political subdivision. All towns in the US are notable, don't see how Norway is different. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I must disagree with my esteemed rival Potatoswatter. All towns in the US are not automatically notable (ever been in one?). Seriously though: Do you think It should be merged instead?Johnzw (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the established consensus that towns are notable. Bfigura (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - All towns are inherently notable, in the US, Norway or any other country. --Oakshade (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per established consensus. Settlements are notable regardless of size and this one is WP:verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep, completely ineligible for deletion. Couldn't people learn this already. Punkmorten (talk) 07:54, 24 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, unverifiable and original research. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Universal Explosion[edit]

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

    Unreferenced and I can find nothing on google about this supposed sound effect. Not sure if it's non-notable or a hoax. Smacks of original research ("The earliest instance of the explosion I've heard") and unverifiability. Mangostar (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, sure, but the prod won't expire until after the AFD does. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, encyclopædia articles are not normally written in the first person. Seems an awful lot like WP:OR. It's no Wilhelm Scream, at any rate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - original research with "classified ad" inserted. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 30 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. Neıl ☎ 11:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DC Comics martial artists[edit]

    DC Comics martial artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is comprised primarily of original research in the sorting and synthesizing of martial arts schools throughout the DC Comics fictional universe. Efforts in the past for rewrite for a more encyclopedic tone, not based in original research have met with some resistance, ([32], [33]). Additionally, martial arts prowess itself is not a notable aspect of comics in the superhero genre, let alone DC Comics. The article ill defines the definition of martial artists, focusing primarily on Eastern martial arts and their structures. Although a compromise of a list article has been offered in the past; ultimately, the qualification for inclusion in this article and any subsequently produced derivative would be arbitrary, at best (which is likely why other superhero genre comics publishers do not have there own "(Comic Publisher)s martial artists" articles). -Sharp962 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    • merge with List of fictional martial artists Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/merge There is lots to say abou DC characters and there are whole encyclopedias about nothing else. This article seems to be a reasonable attempt to present some of this material. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The "efforts in the past" being cited here, both by 66.109.248.114 aka Sharp962, referred to inaccuracies in the article without ever providing examples of what those inaccuracies were meant to be. Moreover, how is it "original research" to point out that in one book Batman learned from Master Kirigi (a verifiable fact, from Batman vol. 1 #431), and in another (Detective Comics #38), taught Dick Grayson? Or that Kirigi taught Bronze Tiger (as shown in Suicide Squad #38), who, in turn, taught Cassandra Cain (Batgirl #67)? D1Puck1T (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: per nom. It's not original research to point out verifiable facts, although with the frequent retconning comics do, "facts" aren't as verifiable as all of that. It's a WP:SYN violation to declare them "martial artists" at all. Who says, and how come? Does every character who fights barehanded, have an epicanthic fold and a vaguely Oriental name qualify?  Ravenswing  19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are martial arts in many parts of the world, and the rule of thumb seems to be that being trained to fight hand to hand means you are trained in martial arts. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In response to User:Colonel Warden, I think there is th ability to make a distinction of how to present the material. Most of the characters still have existing character pages (a platform to present said material); rather than the current presentation, which loosely and arbitarily threads these characters together. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep - With a cleanup tag. This article has potential, IMO Gdavid3 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keepa good way to deal with minor characters, and to bring rlevant information together .DGG (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete synthesis. In this case, gleaning the comics themselves (primary sources that can be subject to interpretation) generates the synthesis by advancing an argument. Had this cited secondary sources advancing this as a common topic, it would be an article worth keeping, but I doubt that such secondary, reliable sources, even exist. B.Wind (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about The DC Comics Encyclopedia: The Definitive Guide to the Characters of the DC, which Colonel Warden linked to in his vote? --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ajax Orienteering and Hill Running Club[edit]

    Ajax Orienteering and Hill Running Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable club. The only reference is to the club's own website, and the club gets no hits on GoogleNews and nothing in any reliable sources on ordinary Google.

    A previous PROD in January was removed; see the subsequent discussion at Talk:Ajax Orienteering and Hill Running Club, where an assertion of notability is made, but no evidence has been offered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 24 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Terreri[edit]

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

    this article is about litigation between Mr. Terreri, as plaintiff, and the United States, written solely from Mr. Terreri's perspective as if the allegations in the complaint were all true, with the only source a quote from the ACLU, who probably underwrote the litigation; it is so biased that it cannot be edited to neutrality, only a complete rewrite could achieve that goal; moreover as noted in prior tags and talk page comments, it is unsorced, a news story and not an encyclopedia article and its tone is inappropriate, those comments have been up for quite some time and no fix has occurred Jlawniczak (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Fails WP:BIO1E. Also, the POV. Oh God the POV. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. POV is not a reason for deletion. The article should be fixed and referenced, not deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per WP:SOAP, and WP:NOT#News. MrPrada (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, filing a lawsuit does not make you notable. Also WP:BIO1E. The article is horribly WP:POV too, which doesn't help. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete: This article has been a mess for a couple years now; there's no reason to think that will change, given that it's been orphaned by the creator (whose Wikipedia activity seems to have been based around a couple such articles).  RGTraynor  19:49, 24 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 (non-admin closure). Since lists offer the capacity for sourcing and further information, reasonably clear consensus discusses that this article should be improved, not deleted, and that "already a category for this" is not a valid deletion rationale. WilliamH (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of hard rock musicians[edit]

    List of hard rock musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Another list which is better presented at Category:Hard rock groups Moondyne 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete category already exists for this, as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Moondyne 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom Potatoswatter (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nominator and other voters have not provided any valid reason to delete this list. The wikipedia guideline on categories and lists specifically notes that wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists and navigational templates. Each way has advantages and disadvantages, and one or more of these ways may be appropriate in a given circumstance. These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Emphasis mine. --Bardin (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I have provided a valid reason: A category of the same data already exists. Can you provide an argument why we would want a manually maintained list which duplicates a perfectly efficient category? I have no objections to lists by the way, as they can provide extra information that categories can't, but this list is just a plain vanilla list—there's no lead and no extra data—its just an alphabetical list. The guideline you quote talks of advantages and disadvantages. What exactly are the advantages of this list? Moondyne 08:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also note that this list is a relatively early Wikipedia article, created in February 2003. The categorization system was implemented in June 2004. I don't believe that a new list of this standard would survive any length of time for the reasons I've stated. Moondyne 08:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Bardin is correct. "There's a category for this" is not a valid rationale for deletion of a list, especially when no other supporting rationales are presented. — Gwalla | Talk 05:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then, what is a particular advantage of list of hard rock musicians over category:hard rock groups? It seems the authors of the list are trying to replicate the formatting of a category page. Many other lists offer short blurbs or hierarchy, but not this one. It's marginally easier to build a list because there's just one page to edit, but that's a poor argument. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ideally lists can add sourcing and further information. This one doesn't do that too much, but it doesn't mean it can't. And although this is not a genre of music I enjoy this list in principle is no different than many others in Category:Lists of musicians by genre. For examples List of alternative country musicians, List of calypso musicians, List of R&B musicians, etc. Preferably though lists like this should be doing something a category would not in order to justify their existence. Example List of folk musicians is arranged by nationality and contains red-links that encourage expansion.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not mean to shamelessly plug my own work but I think I've made the list of folk metal bands a fine example of how such a list of bands by genre can be improved to include many features that a category simply do not and cannot offer. This barren list of hard rock musicians might need some work but that's only a cause for improving it and not deleting it. --Bardin (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • off-topic: nice work. You really should consider taking that to WP:FLC. Moondyne 12:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bardin. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bardin and T. Anthony. --JulesN Talk 10:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I would advocate keeping this list if it provided any information that the equivalent category did not, but since this is just a copy of the information in the category that is harder to maintain, I do not believe getting rid of this would be any great loss. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete Lists only serve a purpose not provided by a category when it has content not providable by a category. This is a raw list of wikilinks with no additional content, so it serves no purpose. -Verdatum (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. I generally find lists useful, but they have to add something to what a category would provide (see WP:CLN). I don't see that here, so I don't see the point of having this list. But if someone finds it more useful than the corresponding category, I don't see the harm in keeping it around... Klausness (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bardin and perhaps advice former list developers to improve in the pointed direction. --Ruziklan (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Bardin pretty much says it. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:01, 28 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) 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dudley Henriques[edit]

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

    non-notable vanity article riffic (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:AB => WP:NPOV. Highly suspect, autobiographical. He does succeed in asserting his own notability so here we are. Furthermore Reader's Digest is a secondary source. However he mainly seems concerned with his "early life" and doesn't say much about actual contributions to aviation. Whatever. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BIO Who is this guy? Why does he deserve an article? It reads like the person who wrote the article was stretching to make the subject sound more import than he really is. Considering the (primary) author and the subject are the same person, it should be deleted. Htrey (talk) 10:40, 24 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 Alberta general election, 2008 for the time being, enabling spinout of any actually notable people. The rest can safely be deleted, and I will re-visit the article at some point to do this. Black Kite 18:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election[edit]

    Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This page is simply a dumping ground for non-notable bios. This type of list/article is a common problem on Wikipedia.. The people weren't notable enough to get their own bio, yet here we are giving them each a bio. A major reason for deleting nn bios, is they tend to receive little editorial attention, and are neglected. Dumping them here simply ensures they won't get any attention. It also bypasses some of the monitoring that occur, for articles in Category:Living people. If you read this article (and earlier versions), we're basically publishing the kind of trivial stuff a candidate normally gives to the local newspaper to print in their profile during the election. Most people never had substantial independent coverage. If anybody did have sufficient coverage for a bio, then they should be given a bio, under their name, where it would actually be found. Rob (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Split the ones with sufficient notability into their own articles (the one with the order of Canada for instance), Delete the rest. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I don't see anything notable about the article now that Mike Robinson has been spun off. --JulesN Talk 10:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split out anyone who might pass WP:BIO by themselves, and then Delete the rest. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep, but remove bios of any non-notable individuals, expand to name all of 82 fielded candidates, and expand/merge to list all candidates of the election. It is appropriate to record all candidates in a notable election, but it is not appropriate to record biographical material that is not explicitly sourced to independent, reliable publications. If someone is not ready to make these substantial changes now, redirect to Alberta general election, 2008 for the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting Through[edit]

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

    Non-notable song; didn't chart or win any awards. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:35, 24 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 20:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ESPN Presents Stadium Anthems[edit]

    ESPN Presents Stadium Anthems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Doesn't seem to be a notable album. No third-party reviews, no album art, no label even. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I'm not finding any sources that would satisfy WP:N. Sure, almost all the individual tracks are notable, but not this compilation. Deor (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's one mini-review... not really seeing anything else though. --Rividian (talk) 02:40, 24 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) 03:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable compilation album. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete fails Wikipedia:NMG#Albums Gary King (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It did chart (ok, barely) and was reviewed on allmusic and is notable as part of the ESPN music compilation series. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Surprising myself here a bit. WP:MUSIC isn't clear about what to do with an album that is a compilation (unless I missed it). The general WP:N guideline says that a musician that has a song that "charts" or an album that "charts" is therefore notable, what to do when the album charts and there is no musician? Is the album notable? I believe that a compilation album, when compiled of notable artists, with notable songs, that are played in stadiums, that has charted in the most widely known "chart" Billboard, is in fact notable enough for inclusion. Needs a billboard ref for verifiability of the charting, other than that, I think the article is good to go. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. Please surprise me, but I'm finding nothing to keep it but the charting. Yeah, I know what WP:MUSIC says, but there's a difference between *charting* and hitting #149 on Billboard. It's not something people will remember an album for. I don't think this needs keeping. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was a very clear consensus for the article to be kept though, in some cases, with the suggestion that the page should be merged into appropriate articles. If any editor wishes to pursue the question of the page being merged then that should be raised on the talk page as a post-AFD editorial matter. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs[edit]

    NUnnotable listing of the individual DVDs. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog and such excessive detail on the DVD releases of this series are wholly inappropriate and excessive. The main article already has a useful, and appropriate summary of DVD releases in table form with the relevant information. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete: It does sound like an advertisement. Rgoodermote  03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep a listing of notable DVDs and relevant details for anyone interested in researching popular culture and DVD sales and information. Even in a worst case scenario we would redirect/merge without deleting, but that's not an AfD issue. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, no reason to exclude this detail. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge if actually important to the Buffy (tv series) article as that is where most of the television articles list DVD releases and seems like a good "framework" to use. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is far too much info to go in the main Buffy article. If we're going to have the info, it needs to be in a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, and don't propose a merge unless you plan to do it yourself (with the consent of the target article's editors). Potatoswatter (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Although I don't see the point myself, the fact there's a whole category of articles suggests this is considered a viable topic for an article. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS probably doesn't apply since Buffy is a more notable program/DVD franchise than many of the shows in the category with similar articles. 23skidoo (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That category only has a handful of articles, in large part because many others have already been deleted. Its interesting that somehow because its "Buffy" somehow its all keeps, but on all the others its rapid fire deletes. Buffy's notability doesn't convey to the DVD releases, which are unnotable and do not need to have sales catalog type listings to receive sufficient coverage. This is seriously undue weight on a minor aspect of the series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourcing does not equal notability, but you say keep on any and everything that goes through AfD, so I don't expect you to argue otherwise. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge Merge possibly with the articles for each season of the series? Gary King (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Definitely too much detail (we needn't know the length of a featurette, for instance) but with a lot of copyediting, would make a good list. Definitely salvageable. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A good list is already in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, why have it in two places and what makes it worth having in its own article instead of just leaving in the main or merging into the episode list? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:18, 24 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, which defaults for now to keep. There seems to be a growing consensus (but not yet enough to close a deletion discussion that way) to merge this back into the Earthworm Jim parent article. A proposed merger may be in order, I'll leave that to the talkpages. So, no consensus to delete, also no consensus as to "how" to keep it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Earthworm Jim items[edit]

    List of Earthworm Jim items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources and is just an in-universe repetition of items used in the Earthworm Jim video game series. This information only needs a brief mention in the video game articles, and not a whole un notable unreferenced article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete with extreme prejudice. Is this even a copyvio? Potatoswatter (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Neutral/merge, see below Needs to cite sources, of course. Like these: EWJ 1 guide book and EWJ 2 Guide book. Like it or lump it, this kind of stuff is well liked by a large number of readers and editors of wikipedia. Deleting it as cruft will only cause new articles about each individual item to be brought up by new readers/editors. It has been consensus that game characters (hardly more or less notable than the items in lots of cases) be allowed as lists in order to better forestall the urge to make individual articles. Calling it cruft doesn't help. One person's cruft is another person's passion. That isn't to say that we shouldn't delete things because people may be passionate about it. but it follows just as well that we shouldn't delete things because people are dispassionate about them either. Wikipedia is not paper. this list (when properly sourced) will not drag down the overall quality of the encylopedia and if it does, it will not do it more than the added effort of fending off game article after game article will anger and divide the editor base. Protonk (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The references and arguments made to keep this article are not helpful; there is no demonstration they have anything to say about the items of the game other than restating what they are, and without notability, issues such as not paper or "I don't like it" don't even come into play. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say what the references said. I said they were out there. that removes the sourcing problem. We can assume that the game itself is notable, yes? We don't need to go through that argument. then we are at a point where the sub-portions of the game come into question. Certainly one weapon by itself isn't notable. But as a whole we are guided by WP:CLN on the subject.

    # ...since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgement call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article -- if someone else feels that it is notable enough, they can always linkify the mention and create an article anyway

    I'm also not sure how "i don't like it" doesn't come into play here. I'm not accusing editors of pushing for deletion because they don't like games, explicitly. I'm saying that they are probably more inlcined to vote that way and that inclination doesn't make for a good argument. "cruft" isn't a complete argument. furthermore, in the cases where "cruft" is shoehorned into a complete argument, "wikipedia isn't paper" provides a pretty coherent response. There is no trade off in keeping this list. We don't face exclusion of a possibly more notable article if this list is kept. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect and in support of editing down to a paragraph or two's worth on main article (per Nifboy/WEIGHT/GAME[GUIDE/CRUFT]). To further the cause, notability is not inherited, and there are no reliable sources used to establish realworld notability. --Izno (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, that's why we have WP:FICTION and guidelines like WP:CLN and WP:SAL. And I agree with you about the sourcing. It isn't in the article as of right now. I'm not opposed to adding this to a list on the main article, but we've got to clear afd and adda merge tag for that. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, but WP:WEIGHT is a policy, while the others guidelines. The main article really should contain the more notable items if they really do matter much to the game; in prose, rather than a list. Furthermore, while the items can doubtless be cited for what they are, I doubt that they will have third party, reliable sources to establish that they are real world noteworthy and thus worthy of their own article. WP:FICT and SAL are essentially clauses of Notability, so I would think that notability takes precedence, which is in turn subject to RS and NPOV. --Izno (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct, but I don't think (not that it matters) that WP:WEIGHT is the appropriate policy here. Sure, if there aren't reliable sources, there isn't an article, but it isn't as though this article was formed to put forth a controversial opinion about the Plasma burster. I think the appropriate guidance is WP:GAMECRUFT, Pt. 3 (as I say below), because it specifically disallows this kinf of list. A lot of people are quoting or paraphrasing Pt. 7, which is great, but it isn't agreed upon. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect as above. Wikipedia is not a game guide (and that is what this article is), but some content may be able to be salvaged. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Merge, but only essentially content, not the majority of it. Pagrashtak 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete: WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. There is no reason to have this much detail on earthworm jim. Stick to the main article, and focus on notable important aspects of it rather than every tiny detail of it. Randomran (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see WP:ITSCRUFT. There are plenty of reasons to have detail on a notable game series and notable aspects of it. Researchers and journalists are potentially interested in how aspects of notable games developed and how these aspects added to the games' success. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there seems to be some traction on Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT#Scope_of_information point 3. That kind of specifically proscribes against this kind of list. but point 7 is just proposed, not enacted. Change mine to merge or neutral Protonk (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge Some of the information is useful and important to the game's series. Gary King (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, ample precedent. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is ample precedent to merge and redirect without deleting, but not really to just outright delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is precedent for both options. Let's not forget that WP:Not#Gameguide is a policy. The Earthworm Jim article is not long at all, and would not be harmed by having a list of playable items added to it. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect into Earthworm Jim (series), cleaning up as we go. Both articles will benefit from being combined, as the series article is currently little more than a list without pulling out the key themes, differences and evolution of a successful entertainment franchise. That way, the series article becomes more of a sourced commentary of the subject with information being provided in-context, something that should be aimed for. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep a preferrred way of handling this sort of material. This is what minor stuff should be merged to. DGG (talk) 00:04, 30 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 WP:SNOW and per improvements of article. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    King Edward VI School, Spilsby[edit]

    King Edward VI School, Spilsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    As this article is written, notability is not immediately apparent. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Give me a chance, I haven't started working on it properly yet. I am compiling the article in a word document sandbox on my laptop and will upload it sometime in the next couple of days. As a rough guideline it will end up pretty much like the entry I compiled for a neighbouring Lincolnshire Grammar School Skegness Grammar School which has a similar length of history 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You may want to consider editing on-wiki from now on. Not only may you dispense with complicated formatting translation issues, you put more of the article online sooner, and you gain the benefit of collaboration with other Wikipedians. Wikipedia articles should not be thought of as something you upload when done. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Dhartung, the reason I have recently started doing it that way is evidenced by this very AfD discussion. It is very difficult to build a complicated entry complete with tables and references all in one hit. Here for example I opened with a couple of starter paragraphs, just to get the topic up onto wiki and SIX MINUTES later (while I was adding further info in edit mode) our friend Ecoleetage hit the article with an AfD tag. Using sandbox is impracical as it may take two days to build a coherant entry but sandbox is wiped every 12 hours. Sadly I have not yet worked out how to use my userspace (which would be an obvious and ideal answer if I can suss it out) and a core build in MS word works OK for me except for the exclamation marks that don't transfer properly. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it is very new. One caveat: This is completely incomprehensible to me as an American, so you might want to develop it in your userspace until it's ready. Maybe redirect this page to the school district until then. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Potatoswatter. Aren't high schools automatically notable? --Deadly∀ssassin 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep, let article develop then take to AfD if there are concerns. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Let the article develop, and also, as one of a few schools to have partial-selection I would say it passes Notability, due to the controversial nature of partial selection. --JulesN Talk 10:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - AfD'd 6 minutes after creation? That's what I call giving a stub a chance to grow :-( In any case, its not only a high school with plenty of sources available but a highly unusual bilateral school. TerriersFan (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:SCHOOLS means a secondary school in the UK is automatically notable, but founded nearly 600 years ago by a king and one of only a handful of unusual bi-lateral schools? I don't know why this was nominated for deletion in the first place 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A thorough, well-written article for a notable institution. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. In addition to everything above, notability does not need to be immediately apparent, but should at least be allowed the standard 5 days to be demonstrated, just as it would get at an AfD. If you have notability concerns for a new article, tag it first, and if nothing develops then consider deletion, rather than waste a lot of other people's time because you jumped too soon. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above.--Berig (talk) 16:42, 24 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 Cardinal direction#Watch face. I had to take a moment on this one, since the "article is a how-to guide" argument is reasonable. Then came the argument that the subject is covered in encyclopedias. Well, I looked at the sources and the books are not really "encyclopedias" in the traditional sense [that means: reference works which inform more than instruct] but rather educational books for youngsters which have "encyclopedia" in the title. Still the argument is not entirely without merit, since coverage in published works like this does contribute significantly to notability. I have read from the discussion that content from here has been merged and remains valid. I am calling this a redirect so that the content is in one place, and not split over two articles. Anyone interested in viewing the original article here may still use the history record which will remain online. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Compass direction using a watch[edit]

    Compass direction using a watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    100% of this article is covered by WP:NOT#HOWTO. Should be in WikiHow. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Several of us have now merged to cardinal direction#Watch face. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't argue with that. I personally added the method to relative direction long ago. But this is way too much information. My wording is:

      Face the sun and check the compass. In the northern hemisphere, before noon, the compass points to your left hand. After noon, it points to your right. The opposite is true of the southern hemisphere.

      To give instructions to someone who knows left from right, and doesn't have a compass, all you need to say is

      The sun in the sky and the hour hand of a 24-hour clock face both revolve over 24 hours. If you hold such a watch horizontal and point the hour hand at the sun, south will be at 24-o'clock in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, north follows the hour hand if 24-o'clock is oriented towards the sun. For more common 12-hour clocks, use 12-o'clock instead and bisect the angle formed by the hour hand. This method does not work near the equator, and errors are introduced by local time zones.

      Still a bit cumbersome, but a whole article isn't needed. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep An entry in a children's encyclopedia's provides a compelling reason to keep: a topic from a specialized encyclopedia. Wikipedia aims at being a general encyclopedia and a collection of specialized encyclopedias. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A children's encyclopedia is specialized. You need to clarify your argument. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of that policy is that Wikipedia should not read like an instruction manual or text book. It is mainly a matter of presentation. The essential facts are worthy of coverage here since they are clearly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point; I agree that some of the content can be salvaged to another article if and when this article is deleted. Gary King (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article is currently written in a how-to-style. However, I think the mere fact that this method works is interestingly enough to have it's own article, independent from the fact wether this method is employed or not. Therefore I don't think this is really an how-to-article. E.g., I can image that this article will be expanded with a proof that this method works, i.e. an explanation. --Cyfal (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Question/Comment - So, you're saying that if a howto article is accurate it should be kept despite WP:NOT#HOWTO? The problem is not that the article isn't true, or proven to work, but that this isn't the purpose of the encyclopedia. Another editor has already merged the information into what seems to be a more appropriate place, so the method's description here won't be lost, but I don't think it needs a separate article as well. ◄Zahakiel► 13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that a howto article should be kept if it's accurate. I'm saying that I find the fact that and why this method works interesting enough for an own article. I've added now an explanation to the article, hope that makes it more clear that this is not just a howto. --Cyfal (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it's only an essay, but I do note that "It's interesting" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Interest is good, so far as it goes, but doesn't really contribute to the encyclopedic content, and explanations of why a process works would make a better article about the science than the activity. I think the merger into "Cardinal direction," as done above, covers all that needs to be covered here. ◄Zahakiel► 00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It seems there are not many supporters of an own article. I have therefore enlarged the cardinal direction#Watch face section so that no informations will be lost in case the article will be deleted. --Cyfal (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on comment - if you do, please also note in that article that it only works that way in the Northern Hemisphere (for the S.H. you need to substitute "left' with "right" and "north" with "south" in the description of how to find the correct direction) Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I did so in both articles [34], [35]??? (Although the explanation is first given for the Northern Hemisphere and then only a short sentence for the Southern one.) If I missed your point, please simply correct me by updating the articles. Best regards, --Cyfal (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - you did indeed. You must've added that after I initially viewed the article currently up for deletion. Thanks. Normally you'd say in the Southern Hemisphere, BTW (although it sounds less logical when you think about it). Grutness...wha? 23:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I've changed the on into in now (such things are still tricky for a non-native speaker... thank you.) --Cyfal (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just for the record, my conviction is that this nomination for deletion and the subsequent affirmations demonstrate an abuse of policy. These actions do not reflect the spirit of wikipedia, WP:COMMONSENSE, nor the guiding question of What would Jimbo do? (WWJD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 (talk • contribs)
    • Unfortunately, it's hard to get an unbiased perspective on "abuse of power" by a democratic committee with no oversight. Most of us see this article only as a textbook case of one particular rule, HOWTO. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. This method is simple enough to fit as a section of a more appropriate article. The essential information itself will be preserved; it's just a matter of where and how it is presented. As an analogy, I think it is good that we don't have an article on compass direction using a compass But we can certainly mention how the direction can be found using a compass in articles such as compass and cardinal direction. --Itub (talk) 10:33, 29 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 deleted by User:MZMcBride (G7 - author request). Canley (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of symbols found on electronic equipment[edit]

    List of symbols found on electronic equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-free image gallery. Lacks context or purpose. MBisanz talk 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete maybe speedy, though it doesn't quite fit any criteria. Far outside the bounds of fair use rules. Mr.Z-man 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this list is to serve as a visual glossary for identifying symbols on electronic equipment. I don't see how that is pointless. These images are being used for reference...how am I breaking the rules? Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I think the concept of an index is promising, but this cruft would need a fresh start. The images are too large and the existing content is indiscriminate and inaccurate - whoever built this wasn't even reading the descriptions of the images included. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I might also add that the reason I started this article was because after a long time searching the Internet, I could not find any such list for identifying such symbols. To date, I have still not been able to identify the symbol I was looking for, and I was hoping others would help expand the list. Eventually, the list would serve me good, if no one else. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Potatoswatter, perhaps you could correct these captions. Keep in mind it has only had one editor so far. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you want to use the Wikimedia Commons instead. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand your last statement correctly, you are advising I remove this list and instead create it in the commons section. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so good with all the copyright issues, so I can't really give any positive advice here. Most of your images should be good because their represented organizations want public familiarity. But you need to reference that fact for each image. Also, more than half the images aren't from electronic equipment at all. Before looking at the page, I expected to see logos for the Underwriters Laboratories and such, in thumbnail form. That could be useful, as often such symbols carry legends in other languages. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. All of the images featured, to the best of my knowledge, appear on electronic equipment. I'm not good with the copyrights, either, so it sounds like my best option is to create some sort of catalogue in the Commons area. I agree, such images would be useful, although they are registered trademarks, and I haven't worked with those before. I'm not sure about the legality issues they pose. I have copied the contents of the page to a user subpage, in case this is deleted, to serve as a base for creating the Commons catalogue. I'll have to do a bit of research before I can get the categories created there. I really appreciate your input on this, by the way. Actually, in the Commons area, it might be perfectly legal to include any image I like in the category pages. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It does appear to be crufty. Most of the images appear on other pages e.g. ESRB perhaps this could be reworked to point through to the various pages? --Deadly∀ssassin 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Bob: The problem is, you're using "fair use" images (that is, fully copyrighted images that we don't have a license for), in a gallery which has no legally defensible use. Your personal use is one matter, but Wikipedia is rather strict about the use of unlicensed copyrighted material. We're not saying it's not a good idea, or that it's pointless (I'm not, anyway), but it's something that could, potentially, get Wikipedia in trouble. Many of these symbols are trademarks which, if you read the article, the trademark owner is required to defend the mark against dilution else lose it. We'd rather not be involved in such situations, so we can't allow galleries like this. Make sense? ~Kylu (u|t) 01:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm definitely not one to break the law, so I want to thank you for bringing all of this to my attention, everyone. In probably a bit too much of a haste, I reproposed the original challenge here. I am now beginning to wonder if even this could get Wikipedia into trouble. If so, I'll promptly remove the entire request and abandon the project. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're sure that you want it deleted you can blank the page as you're the creator and only editor so that it qualified for speedy deletion. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, I will blank it, but I was trying to save a copy for my reference in case I am permitted to create the Commons pages of which we spoke. Earlier when I copied the text to a subpage in my Username, I returned to find it missing. Am I not allowed to maintain a copy past the deletion, in order to help me put together a less controversial page? At this point I am almost ready to just give up defending my actions...I spent an entire week simply working on this page. To have to relocate images when moving it to Commons would really be inconvenient. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should be able to. The point for AfD is discussion of the article, not to beat you into submission to see other people's point of view. :) Blank only if you are sure. As for the copy you made, remember that the URL may be case sensitive which could be how you lost it. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2? I wonder how that happened? Thanks for the link. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like you accidentally didn't put it under your user namespace and someone moved it. There's this [37] copy too. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not only is there a massive fair-use violation here, the subject fails WP:NOT#INFO. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete criterion G12 - blatant copyright infringement, a list copyrighted images with little context or justification for their use. Guest9999 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HELLO PEOPLE-- Yes, I am blanking the page. My question is whether it would be acceptable to do this in the Commons area in category format. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is ready for deletion now.

    Thank you, Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Creator of the article[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article moved to Henry S. Levy and Sons (see below & my talk page). NawlinWiki (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Levy's[edit]

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

    Doesn't seem to be a notable bakery; I can't find any reliable sources pertaining to it. Heck I can't even figure out where it is based on the article. (Note to closing admin: If this page ends up deleted, I will be moving Levy's (department store) to Levy's. If Levy's shows up in blue after the page on the bakery gets deleted, please don't end up deleting the page on the department store -- I had this sort of thing happen once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Minor.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Doesn't establish notability. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete advertising and tagged as such. --Pmedema (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep (and speedy declined) -- I remember "You don't have to be Jewish" as one of the best-known ad campaigns of the 60s/70s in NYC. Have added one source, will look for more. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Works for me. You do that, and I'll close the AFD. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:57, 24 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonard C. Bruno[edit]

    Leonard C. Bruno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability seems a bit on the iffy side. Any thoughts on this entry? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - a bare bibliography does not satisfy WP:BIO, and weird pretentious phrasing. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:49, 24 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 by strength of argument. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of countries by coast/area ratio[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List of countries by coast/area ratio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Many of the same reasons as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by compactness: this table ranks countries according to a rather arbitrary measurement; no sources are provided to establish the notability or utility of this measurement; the idea of "coast/area ratio" itself doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia entry; and the values obtained are very sensitive to errors, perturbations, or differences in technique in measuring areas and coastlines. —Bkell (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete This sounds like a mathematician's joke. It's well known that such a measurement is ill defined, as rocky coastlines have fractal structure and length depends on the length of the surveyor's ruler. Furthermore, several large countries get by with little coastline - all that matters is the harbors on the coast. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Potatoswatter. The concept is apparently a red link, and per above, very prone to errors. I see nothing but a mathematical joke here too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete pretty much the same reasoning as the "compactness" AFD. There is nothing here to indicate that this is a particularly useful way of ranking countries, and is mostly a measure of how jagged the coastline is. Concur with original research concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear. One of my very early contributions. Regarding your comments so far, here are some considerations (if it makes any difference):
      • Utility of the ratio: This ratio is more important than the absolute coastline length, because it tries to compare the countries' accessibility to the sea on equal terms.
      • Accuracy and measurements: Fractal considerations are valid when we speak about different scales and/or different sources for the figures. This simply does not apply in this case, since all data is taken from the single reliable source of the CIA Factbook; hence, are perfectly comparable on equal terms.
      • Harbors matter if you are into shipping (or something). Others may be interested in fishing, so they want rocky coasts. I prefer sand beaches, myself. The total coastline ratio is helpful for all such cases, as an indication.
      • Notability: I don't know how it applies in this case, or if it should (it doesn't seem to). Nevertheless, I'm sure I can find several scholarly occasions where the ratio has been used, notably for estimating the danger of disasters related to the sea, for avian/marine biology, for environmental considerations, as a note in official political sites, "coastal management" (whatever that may be), or -merely- for recreational activities. In any case, WP:NOT#PAPER comes to mind. Surely, some will find this list useful/helpful, and if it's sourced and accurate, I can't see why we shouldn't have it.
      • And a consideration interested users may find applicable: We now have those techie sortable tables in WP. How about we simply add the ratio as a new column right next to the existing List of countries by length of coastline, and let the readers themselves sort the table according to that ratio if they wish? (I guess that consideration would be equivalent to "Merge in List of countries by length of coastline".) Just a thought. NikoSilver 07:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In my opinion, it would probably be best to grab a few of those articles and cite them in page to establish notability rather than moving it into a more general list of countries table. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Protonk. I think those links in the article would humor our notability requirement bureaucracy more than they would aid the actual reader. The former will be linked through the talkpage to this debate (if the article "survives"), and I'd be glad to hear your suggestions for the latter in case I am mistaken. NikoSilver 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's using a rather arbitrary measure Gary King (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The arguments presented above are pretty convincing. Notability is established by the references. The article is not in a state of flux (and is evidently tended). It is no more a synthesis than a list of countries by area is a synthesis. And it is a clever example of what is great about wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into List of countries by length of coastline as another sortable field or keep. Unlike the compactness AfD, this page seems to be measuring a notable and meaningful quantity. Oren0 (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep a good way of presenting this information. Arithmetic is not synthesis in the OR sense. DGG (talk) 00:07, 30 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) 07:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oneworld.net[edit]

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

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. No improvement, still Only one of the sources is independent of the subject and seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. This is nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 24 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. Carioca (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bacteria Tower Defense[edit]

    Bacteria Tower Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested CSD. Page does not assert notability. Except for the one to the webpage's about page, the references do not make reference to "Bacteria Tower Defense". Deadly∀ssassin 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Fails WP:N. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as a spammy article about a non-notable game Bfigura (talk) 04:21, 24 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 this is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mutual Assistance Living[edit]

    Mutual Assistance Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Neologism, per WP:NEO. New editor, with good intentions, seeks to publicize a concept he invented and considers important. The primary sources are papers by the editor who created the article. Problems with WP:OR and WP:VAIN. Might be covered in some article on aging, but too new for a standalone article. See Talk:Mutual Assistance Living. John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 24 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_24&oldid=1081102654"