Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 21

< April 20	April 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Turner[edit]

Does not pass the threshold of notability. Subject of article was a local television journalist, who apparently was a fine person, and whose tragic death was a loss to the community. Local celebrities are not necessarily notable. His principal claims to notability seem to be that he is the subject of a 39-page book written (and apparently self-published) by his brother and that a section of a Kentucky road was named in his honor, but those do not add up to WP:N. Several of the external links in the article no longer point to content about him, and I had to delete the link to the blurb for his brother's book in order to add the AfD template because the book link is on a blacklisted domain. Orlady (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Also, Wiki does not function as a memorial. Renee (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to WYMT-TV. Probably the most logical solution. Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a fine person, but purely a memorial article. Edison (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial service. It pains me to recommend this, but Wikipedia policy precludes otherwise, delete as a merge to WYMT-TV would be inappropriate.B.Wind (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Keylock[edit]

Fails WP:BIO due to lack of substantial coverage. It seems that he is often "mentioned", "namedropped" or whatever in the context of Brian Jones' death. The article does not cite sources. Google does give some hits which mention the name (such as [1]), but there seems to be no substantial biographical coverage. A film mentions the story [2]. Now is this real? a legend? merely fictional? In any case, I do not think we should have a biography of a (probably) living person based on these thin sources. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:08, 22 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, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not sure being a driver for a rock band counts as encyclopedic. No sources cited. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In itself, no - but in the bigger context of a notable musical career (see Otis Redding and Larry Williams for two such examples), it would be. Unfortunately in the case of Tom Keylock, the problem is lack of independent coverage. The little bits mentioned in the article fall short of WP:BIO standards - and it's well short of Mal Evans standards. B.Wind (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House Shoe Musik, Vol. 1[edit]

Prod was contested. Reason was: mixtapes are not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blair - Speak to me 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did some searching - while the album is produced by Snoop, it is not notable without any reviews by independent and reliable music sites/magazines, which I could not find. Staeiou (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ziggy Saw dust15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Down[edit]

Upcoming album by the Smoking Popes. Album completely fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable, and the only source is that album was allegedly played at some bar. Admc2006 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also spent about 10 minutes hunting for more sources to verify the information but could not find any. Paradoxsociety (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ziggy Saw dust 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, and no assertion of notability. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, textbook case of crystal ballery. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Rummy[edit]

Not notable, as per WP:MADEUP and WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. A card game of which no record exists in the real world. Grandfather Clock (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google does have a few sources for "Las Vegas Rummy" as oppose to "normal" Rummy. Perhaps it can be reduced to a stub by removing the OR (by someone more expert at the game than me). PeterSymonds | talk 09:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article may now be deleted. I have posted the information elsewhere since wikipedia seems to show no interest in the gathering of knowledge. Patsissons (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 17 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, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its completely lacking references/citations inline or otherwise, however this just makes it a bad article, so I would propose that either it gets some references to improve the article.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable variation of rummy, possibly made up by the author or played in a select group of friends. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy Sawdust (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of high-end audio equipment manufacturers[edit]

I propose deletion for this reason: it is too difficult to define "high-end" or "high fidelity" with respect to specific products or specific manufacturers. Different observers draw the line in various places. Additionally, the page has become an across-the-board linkfarm with very little utility for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, subjective, no clear criteria for inclusion. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, originally I objected removal, but now it seems like the right thing to do. Adamantios (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently biased Ziggy Saw dust 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If that is the case, but AfD is not for resolving NPOV issues. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If an article cannot be written in such a way as to comply with NPOV, then it should be deleted. Presumably that's what "inherently" means in this context. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I am aware of that and thus should've elaborated further. I agree. High-end is incredibly vague and there is intrinsic POV in it. Unless a suitable NPOV means of collectivising said manufacturers can be found, my thoughts on the matter are Delete. WilliamH (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion. I would suggest renaming, but I can't think of a name for this article that would provide a clear neutral unambiguous inclusion criterion. As it is, it's a bit of a spam-magnet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a list, the reader is referred to the article High-end audio which discusses the terminology. This is, after all, a commonly used term at the retail level. POV issues and sourcing can be fixed. JGHowes^talk - 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This list needs lots of cleanup, and it's not clear that anyone's interested in putting in that kind of work. Nevertheless, a cleaned-up verison of this list would clearly be worth keeping per WP:CLN, and since deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, I suppose that makes this worth keeping. Klausness (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what makes equipment "high-end"? I doubt many manufacturers would describe their products as "low-end", for instance. The list inherently contains a POV, no matter what is to be done with it, and should be deleted for that reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 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 speedily deleted as G7 by Tiptoety (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Wands[edit]

Non-notable band. Article is autiobiographical and appears to be written by the band themselves. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spying on the United Nations[edit]

This article is undersourced for the claims it makes.

This article makes numerous unsourced statments.
The article name is POV in that it removes any question as to if the UN was spied on.
The Andrew Wikkie comment is made by an unlinked person who is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. His context to the subject is unclear.
The only source about the memo seems to counter the entire article. All other statements about the memo are unsourced
Of the few Program reports made in the article all are unsourced in the reflist
The final references about bugs but do not note any context as to what or who was bugged. Where the bugs active? Where the bugs placed by anyone else? Who at the UN knew about the bugs and when? --Lemmey (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Lemmey (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay and WP:SOAP. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's not a very good article, but that's not a deletion reason. There has been spies in the UN; it's Wikipedia's job to write an article on that based on the available sources. This is a start to that article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has its problems but it is hardly unsalvageable. What is described above is a perfect Talk page discussion, but really contains no deletion rationale that I can see. Is there a project that could take responsibility for this? I do agree the title is wrong. For one thing, the UN has certainly and incontrovertibly been spied on since the beginning, but this is mere statecraft and the way things work. The title should be about this history (and it wasn't just the Cold War!). This was a specific scandal/revelation/controversy and should be titled appropriately, e.g. 2003 allegations of Security Council surveillance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As, above the article has its problems but it is hardly unsalvageable. The whistle-blowing by GCHQ translator Katharine Gun about the U.S. NSA memo on UN bugging, the abandoned official secrets court case aginst her, combined with a former UK Cabinet Minister stating she had seen bugging transcripts is about as good evidence as it gets with spying allegations short of a full court case. Plenty of sources out there that could be referenced. Rwendland (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename. And gut some of the unreferenced stuff while we're at it. But, on the whole, it appears to be a good beginning to an article. Pastordavid (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything else here. This article is a decent start on something. It needs some clean-up and probably a better name, but Keep and Rename should be the course of action.
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. --JulesN Talk 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, rename, and strong cleanup per all. Thin boy 00 @525, i.e. 11:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung, others. Markovich292 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is significant and reliable sources are available to develop the article. JGHowes ^talk - 01:01, 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 Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Jr. A Mountaineers[edit]

A lacrosse team with questionable notability. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep team at the top level of junior lacrosse in Canada, and hosting the Minto Cup this year - a 108 year old competition.[3]. At worst, I'd suggest moving to Calgary Mountaineers and expanding the article to include the Sr. B and Jr. B teams, all of which appear to be part of the same overall organization. Reso lute 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment "Junior" lacrosse? Is that adolescent lacrosse? Just wondering. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I am not entirely certain on the age group involved specifically, but I believe it is similar to junior ice hockey, which is the age group of 16-20, with the majority of players being adult. I believe what you are thinking of is minor lacrosse, which is for younger age groups, and would be a better example of adolescent (or juvenile) lacrosse. The top levels of junior lacrosse feed into the top major leagues (the National Lacrosse League and Major League Lacrosse) as well as the top senior leagues (Ontario Lacrosse Association and Western Lacrosse Association), so teams at this level will have produced notable players. I am not as well versed on the history of this specific team, so could not produce an example off the top of my head. Reso lute 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I nominated it due to questionable notability. A 16-20 year old lacrosse team? a) I don't think that a 16-20 year old team of anything is notable. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would then ask you to read the article on the Calgary Hitmen and tell me a 16-20 year old team of anything is not notable. Personally, I certainly believe the Mountaineers organization is notable. The Senior squad has won a national championship, and the Junior A squad is hosting one this year, and has played for it in the past. This is why I suggested a rename and expansion as a possibility. I've left a note at WP:LACROSSE to make that suggestion. Reso lute 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not indication of notability in the article. And since I don't think that being a team of 16-20 year olds is inherently notable, delete Bfigura ^(talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment once again It isn't fair to compare junior teams between different sports. And anyway, just because a "seniors" team wins a championship doesn't mean that their "juniors" team is notable because of it. Notability#Not Inherited. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that you didn't think any team of 16-20 year olds was notable, I showed one that is. ergo, that argument is a non-starter, would you not agree? As for the senior vs. junior team, my point is that they are parts of one organization. i.e., the opening sentence would be: "The Calgary Mountaineers are an organization in the Rocky Mountain Lacrosse League that hosts a senior and two junior teams..." Resolute 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - May I correct myself? I thought that the WHL was for an older age group. I change my mind, but that is about it. And, you should at least push for a merge with Calgary Mountaineers. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WHL is the highest level of junior hockey, much as this is the highest level of junior lacrosse. There is no article on the senior team to merge to, at present, which is why I argued for a move and an expand in scope, if this article is decided not to be kept with its current scope. Reso lute 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Top tier team, feeder system for National Lacrosse League, not all too different from Minor League Baseball. As well, the team competes for the Minto Cup... very notable. This team is comparable to what teams in the Canadian Hockey League are to ice hockey. DMighton (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Top level team which feeds into the Top level professional league. There are hundreds of equivalent articles in other sports that could easily be a precedent. I am not saying this should exist because they do I am just suggesting that its a pretty clear cut keep. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you bothered looking at the page? There is barely anything. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A need for expansion is not a reason for deletion. Though I will try to add something more to the article, or just be bold and make my suggested move soon... probably tomorrow. Reso lute 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the required notability guidelines for sports teams. Per WP:ATHLETE (can't find the one specifically for sports teams) Gary King (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, not sure that there's a notability criteria for junior sports team, but being in the top tier would indicate notability to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 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 speedily deleted as G12 by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Basic Principles of Relations Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[edit]

Either its a copyright violation or it should be moved to Wikisource. WP doesn't do full-text reproductions of treaties. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for hosting of primary sources. Nick Graves (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Copy vio, article links to the original page, which is identical sans wikification. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G12 copyvio per NickPenguin. Tagged as such Bfigura ^(talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita pornography[edit]

Article has been tagged unreferenced since 2006. Google search found only one decent possible reference: [4]. The reference only makes passing mention of "lolita porn." And there is already an article "Lolita--term" in which Lolita porn is mentioned: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(term)]. I think mention of "Lolita porn" in "Lolita-term" is more than enough, and we do not need a whole article on this. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree. The porn topic is pretty closely tied in with the base term. I don't see a need for a separate article. It's also an unlikely search term as someone looking for information on this topic would either go straight to lolita or the child p. article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourceless, original research. The verifiable information here is not of sufficient volume to justify an article separate from the term Lolita. Nick Graves (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as likely search term. Nominator probably should have brought this up on the talk page if it already wasn't; as a likely search term for Lolita/child porn, it should redirect there and merge any good content. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one has ever posted anything on the talkpage of this article; it is completely empty.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, neologism. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KleenupKrew. Edison (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like original research to me. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, neogloism. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Celarnor...I see no reason to delete a possible search term and some content may be salvageable. Markovich292 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced character of article indicates original research. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all three: WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V. There are no references on the page not because none have been added, but because none can be found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:35, 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 keep. John254 02:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Rehnquist[edit]

Article is about a living person, makes controversial claims and is entirely unsourced. Recommend Quick Deletion as per Jimbo Wales guidelines on such matters. Lemmey (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is obviously notable. The first item listed in a Google search for her name yielded an article in a reliable source, and there are plenty more besides. I blanked potential BLP violations and added one reference. This is a viable subject, and the article can now be built properly from the ground up. Nick Graves (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: how notable is being a former Inspector-General of HHS? We don't seem to have articles on any other such people (e.g. the HHS site says the current IG is Daniel Levinson, but the Wikipedia article is about a deceased psychologist) and as a New Zealander, I am unsure about the importance of the position. Blair - Speak to me 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News archive search [5] produces several hundred article in reliable sources with substantial coverage, easily satisfying WP:BIO. Certainly the article should be kept free of any WP:BLP violations. Edison (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The article is incomplete and would've been ripe for deletion had it not been for a vigorous defense stated here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inspectors general are not normally notable, but Rehnquist became notable because of the way she did her job. Rolling Stone wrote, "No one epitomizes the� politicization of Bush's inspectors general more than Janet Rehnquist. The chief justice's daughter, who served as a former White House counsel to Bush's father, was named IG of the Department of Health and Human Services in 2001. She quickly eviscerated her own investigative staff, lightened penalties for fraudulent Medicare contractors and doled out political favors to the Bush clan. In 2002, in direct response to a request by Jeb Bush's chief of staff in Florida, Rehnquist postponed an embarrassing audit of the state's pension system until after Jeb's re-election." None of this is in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it in the article, please! As it stands, there is no notability! Ecoleetage (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If and when I get a chance. Putting it in the article is not a requirement for passing AFD, and I have other priorities at this moment. It is often my hope that someone else will pick up a baton. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTry reading WP:N There actually is notability demonstrated by the references identified here. The argument that there is "no notability" because the readily accessible refs Dhartung and I have identified have not been added to the article yet is invalid. The refs are there and clearly satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO, which do not require that they must have been added to the article. An imperfect and incomplete article is a candidate for editing, not for deletion. Others can add the references. This AFD will always be accessible on the talk page and will provide a source of material to improve and expand the article. WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It does not say that the article must include those references to survive AFD. Edison (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The references (all three of them) do not strike me as "significant." And the article itself is, as it stands today, a single sentence that identifies the lady in question simply through the title of a former job and for being the child of a famous parent. Again, please rewrite the article to meet Wikipedia standards or allow it to be brushed away. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added three reliable sources and a bit of the section on the controversy. It had only a single sentence because it had been scrubbed of lengthy material about the controversy surrounding her tenure, the investigation by congress, and her resignation, which are now documented in references from the Associated Press (reported by CBS) and by a CBS story available online. Many other reliable sources have substantial coverage of the topic but are behind paywall so someone will have to visit a library to get the full text. Your dismissal of such references as the Washington Post, CBS, or the Associated Press is way out of the mainstream of Wikipedia's evaluation of sources. There is no "brushing away" of sourced articles you do not like. Edison (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response. For anyone who is genuinely serious about this subject, I will direct your attention to this easily accessible web site [6] and its significant details on Ms. Rehnquist’s career – details that appear nowhere in the Wikipedia article. It also seems that she running her own legal/lobbying/consulting group in Washington, which this Wikipedia article does not mention. Nor does it mention that she was previously co-chair of the Washington health care practice for Venable LLP, one of America’s most prominent law firms. Ms. Rehnquist is clearly a notable and important figure, but you wouldn’t know it by reading this site’s article. Perhaps the supporters of this article will offer serious academic research and writing that gives the subject her proper due? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you agree that the subject is notable, perhaps you woul consider changing your recommendation from "delete" to "keep." As for the article's incompleteness, that is not a criterion for deletion. You are free to expand and improve the article using the reliable sources that have been found. Nick Graves (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Nick - vote switched. But I'll leave the rewrite to a better writer than me! Ecoleetage (talk) 01 : 15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just an FYI. Particularly on AFDs but generally in Talk pages, it's considered appropriate to ~~strike out~~ a previous vote or statement using <s>...</s>, so as not to make replies look like non sequiturs. AFDs can also be vandalized, so making a change to your own text clearer is an aid to identifying inappropriate changes. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Dhartung, thanks. I am relatively new to all of this and a lot of the protocol hasn't quite been absorbed. I appreciate your patience. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. I'm sure that if Jimbo Wales actually reviewed this he would support the inclusion of an article about this person. Let us not invoke WP:JIMBOSAID unless he actually said it, shall we? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The above comments have satisfied me as to the notability of the subject. Blair - Speak to me 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added back some of the deleted material with refs, just to make the case for notability, but would a better writer please add general info about her career to keep the article NPOV so the controversy is not all there is. The controversy is what makes her more notable than the average office holder with a comparable job, but once notability is shown a more complete picture should be there. Edison (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs expansion. Markovich292 05:26, 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 - Nabla (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Bond (actress)[edit]

This is a unnotable actress that only played a small role in one film. Looking at the film's Wiki page, she isn't even mentioned in it. Tavix (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. The given IMDb reference shows that the subject is only known for one film. A Google search also seems to confirm this. Paradoxsociety (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable evidence of independant notability. Pastordavid (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Appeared in one film (so IMDb says), and that was seven years ago! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actress. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable based on the information offered here. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Markovich292 05:29, 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 - Nabla (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rackonomics[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Nakon 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also verges on spam, from the tone; note that the author is an SPA. Anturiaethwr 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
Delete. Only one unique Google hit, which appears to be a press release from the company. No reliable third party coverage evident. Nick Graves (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neologism. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources and above reasons. Paradoxsociety (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/WP:NEO. Staeiou (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, created by a SPA, i'm pretty sure this is spam. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising Ziggy Saw dust 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as this looks to be a neologism without reliable sources to back it up. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologistic spam. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, WP:SPAM Gary King (talk) 19:20, 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. Despite claims to the contrary, no reliable, third party sources to prove notability were brought to the discussion.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Flaherty[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to James J. Flaherty. Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of a notable book. I added two different reviews of the book. --Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither meet the requirements of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. One is written by the subject (James Flaherty) himself. --Hu12 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is almost entirely original research, subject does not appear to fulfill any of the notability requirements for creative professionals. Nick Graves (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the coaching field, James Flaherty is a notable figure. He founded one of the first schools about twenty years ago. His inclusion into wikipedia is not intented to be self-promotion, but instead educating those who want to learn about the growing field of coaching. He studied under Fernando Flores and is a peer of Julio Olalla who both have articles. He is also coming out with a second book this year called "Integral Coaching." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) — Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: Well, prove it. Find independent, reliable sources that confirm that Flaherty is notable in the coaching field, then cite them in the article. Nick Graves (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Is Amazon editorial reviews considered an indepent, reliable source too? There are independent reviews made by individuals such as Peter Senge on the sales page of Amazon. Dubbgainer (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an act of self-promotion on the part of the Flaherty's. Yes, I'm a student with the school, but I am try to only add things that are factual. Please read the editorial reviews on Amazon, you will get a sense for what the general opinion is of James in the OFFLINE world in coaching. How can we incorporate the Amazon reviews onto this page? Dubbgainer (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amazon blurb doesn't do it for me. Although original research may not be grounds for deletion, lack of notability is, and until you demonstrate that, you will have an uphill battle. Read WP:BIO carefully to understand the kind of notability evidence that people here expect. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- How is that people like Julio Olalla have articles then when that pages has zero references? Dubbgainer (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove the promotional part. His principal book is in 1003 libraries according to Worldcat, which makes it a very prominent publication in the field. i find it hard to judge notability of careers like this without something objective like this to go by--otherwise I would have said differently. DGG (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While WorldCat is a useful tool to find books and sources, its not an indicator of WP:NOTABILITY nor does it pass WP:BIO for a stand alone article.--Hu12 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I find myself in agreement with Hu12. I don't see how a raw number of libraries carrying his book translates into notability, nor how it is an objective measurement. What's the threshold? What are you comparing this number to? More importantly, how does this tie in with the relevant notability guideline? Nick Graves (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Notable, to be certain, although the article could use better referencing. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What is your basis for judging this person notable? Nick Graves (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Admins. Today, I'm more collected. I apologize for the way I might have communicated yesterday, I was just frustrated and am new to this process. I appreciate your taking the time to review this stuff and am surprised how many reviewers there are to be honest. I've taken a look at some of the pages you cited and would like to cite one myself as we continue this discussion. WP:GOODFAITH I could see how this article is one-sided in that the statements are all just positive. I will take steps this week to clean up the content and add elements that might be from a critic's point of view. The new intention will be to provide an honest, multi-perspective view on his life. That said, I am also trying to read through the topic of notability. I took a look at what Wikipedia defines as "reliable sources" and two notable realms of knowledge seem to be scholarly (academic) work or news organizations. Honestly, these are two areas in which the school has not placed emphasis on getting feedback from. I'm actually a part of the scholarly community (doing a Master's in Organizational Psychology) and the field of coaching is heavy practiced in business by psychologists and sociologists, but the irony is that there isn't much research around it yet. My opinion is that James's work on coaching draws much from philosophy and Eastern studies, and has yet to be accepted into the mainstream Western world. As a creative professional, to me, he seems to be on the border of qualification. In the realm of coaching in the past 20 years, he has left a decent-sized footprint and he is well-positioned for more quicker growth. His book has been popular on Amazon ever since it was published in 1998. Sure, he doesn't have a profuse number of reviewers of his book, but there are some heavy-hitting individuals in academia who think highly of his work such as Peter Senge from MIT and Jerry_I._Porras from Stanford. He has recurring partnerships with big-players in non-traditional studies such as Wendy Palmer of Conscious Embodiment and Ruso-Hudson from the Enneagram Institute. The new concept he is sheparding is called Integral Coaching and a second book should be coming out this year. This approach has been applied to executives in many companies such as HP, Intel, Ford, Boeing, Genentech, Cisco, etc with what they would describe to be "successful" results. The focus of this methodology has to do with quality, where ideographic (or qualitative self-reports) weigh more significantly. This school is not a coaching school factory like the big-name school CTI. But it still has produced over 1,000 trained coaches over CTI's 8,000 trained professionals. James has trained several new teachers of this Integral Methodology and each have some high-regards themselves such as Sarita Chawla (http://demetermatrix.com/who.html) and Craig O'Flaherty who is running the Centre for Coaching in South Africa. But I could see what you guys are looking for in an encyclopedia. Perhaps for history to unfold first, then document it. With this fuller picture, do you guys feel like James has led notable progress thus far? If so, how can we validate what I wrote about or cite qualitative responses? If not, are the major areas you see as gaps? Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem much closer to this subject than just a student with the school. Please be aware of the following;

Conflict of interest
- Editors who have a conflict of interest
- Accounts used for promotion
What Wikipedia is not
- Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
- 'Role' accounts
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nick Graves. Markovich292 05:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Desipte the fact that it's rather well-written, I do not believe that having a book reviewed in a couple of mid-level publications automatically confers notability on the author. The book may be notable, but I don't think that Mr Flaherty is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 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 - Nabla (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Stojkovik[edit]

Delete and possibly salt Non-notable actor. Article has been deleted twice now for notability reasons, but the creator of the article, who is presumably the subject, has recreated both times. Also, google searches for "Petar Stojkovik" Macedonia and "Petar Stojkovik" actor all show minimal sources.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made a post on the talk page of the Republic of Macedonia wikiproject about this AFD. Blair - Speak to me 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For me, this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. The lack of English language references certainly hinders its case, although if it could be proved to me he is notable in Macedonia I would not be against changing my opinion. Blair - Speak to me 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreation of twice-deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KILL WITH FIRE twice-deleted, unsourced Ziggy Saw dust 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus below is that the deputy mayor of Delhi is inherently notable despite WP:BIO1E concerns. Darkspots (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surinder Singh Bajwa[edit]

Delete Not notable. He is listed here solely for the unusual single incident that precipitated his death, not for any notable contributions to Indian politics or legislative policy. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A position such as deputy mayor of a large city like Delhi (more people than some states or provinces) probably indicates notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment deputy mayor of Delhi. I dont know the local political structure, so I can not say if the office is notable--some places it might be, others not. If it is, hen information about other aspects of his career can be added. DGG (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I learned to my chagrin (by nominating one, only to be accused of anti-Indian bias), Indian cities are managed by civil servants (municipal commissioners) via a federalized meritocratic system. Mayors and councillors seem to have non-trivial political influence, but they are nothing like the strong mayor system in some Western cities. Some US cities have a council-manager form of government with a ceremonial mayor who may also preside over the council, and I think this is the closest analog. I'm even less sure where a deputy mayor falls in this context, but it may be close to the vice presidency of a city council. Anyway, for cryin' out loud, the least we can do is put his death in context. Monkeys are a serious pest in Indian cities. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung's comment about the deputy mayor. If that is indeed a true statement, the guy really doesn't have that much notability. Tavix (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His position in a city of the size and significance of Delhi makes him notable, as far as I can tell - this position seems to clearly be high profile, if not as high profile as the mayor of New York, London etc. There are multiple, non-monkey related, sources available with just a quick Google search for "SS Bajwa", including this one which mentions that he was the Delhi senior vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party also. I am not particularly knowledgable about Indian politics, and I would certainly not accuse anybody of bad faith here, but I think that there is a risk of systematic bias here. TigerShark (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do also note that the current mayor (Arti Mehra) does not have any article, and would suggest that one should be created. TigerShark (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not haver the least doubt about the mayor of Delhi, but he was the deputy mayor. It isn't reasonable to assume its's anywhere near as important as the mayor. And of course we should have an article on the mayor. If you have sources available, justwriteityourself. DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. High political office in a city of 12.8 million people ((22 million metro area) automatically makes this person notable. Even if the position is largely symbolic (which I do not know), this person is still sufficiently notable to have an article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm more confused than ever. It was a problem for me the last time that we didn't have an article on the municipal commissioner position in India, and we still don't. Municipal Corporation of Delhi is a well-nigh hopeless cut-and-paste job. I did determine that the MCD governs about 13 or 14 million of the people in the capital territory (which has its own state-like government, while New Delhi has its own municipal council as well!). Bajwa was Deputy Mayor to Arit Mehra, whom TigerShark identified. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor are both indirectly elected by the councillors (vote totals). According to the NPO City Mayors, The Mayor generally lacks executive authority. This is due to the British roots of the system that remain from the time when the administrator was the representative of the colonial power, not to the fact that it operates under a council-manager system The Deputy Mayor has no powers except to act in the Mayor's absence. (On the other hand ... 13 million people.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know there's an essay that says we shouldn't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument but I think it's a perfectly good argument here. If we have any intention of being taken seriously as an encyclopedia then how can we keep articles on bands that have singles that scrape into the charts and footballers who play one match in League 2 but not a deputy mayor of Delhi? This is just the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock in some quarters Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I didn't want to vote, see above, but if it will help a consensus form I will). I'll revise the article to clarify his role as a ward councillor representing ~49,000 people. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 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 userfied by author. Veinor (talk · contribs) has deleted the remaining redirect. Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiecg74[edit]

No real sources given; only potential source of notability appears to be one newspaper article. Fails the notability criteria. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have appeared on Sky News, and BBC news regarding the selling of the Tesco Carrier bag. Surely the fact that I was in a national newspaper (The Daily Mail) would substantiate that the page could be kept?? The picture that I uploaded on the page is genuine. Can I have a specific reason why i cannot keep the page, and what i can do to ensure that I can keep it? - Jamiecg74 21/4/2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecg74 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:BIO, the guideline for biographical articles. I can't guarantee that your page will be kept, but it can at least be userfied (see WP:USERFY). I would also suggest that you read our policies on conflict of interest (WP:COI), as it's usually considered bad form to write an article about yourself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The problem is that not all references that people get in newspapers is equal. The eBay sale may have received national coverage, but it doesn't necessarily qualify you for notability. People generally don't come notable (according to the Wikipedia definition) after just one mention in a newspaper; it requires multiple, independent reliable sources.

On a somewhat related note, the anecdote about Whizzer and Chips doesn't really add anything to the article. It may have meant a lot to you at the time, but it's pretty much the sort of thing you'd tell your friends, not the sort of thing you'd put in an encyclopedia. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found in Google News Archive searches using various terms ("jamiecg74", "jamie.green youtube", "jamie.green mash.up"). Fails WP:BIO. Not even really marginal, but if it were, COI would tip it for me. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I read the Guardian article, it calls the subject a "potential new star" and regrets that not enough people visit the site. So for once we actually have proof from a RS that the subject is not notable.21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment This content would just be better off (in a substatially edited form) as a User page. Howie ☎ 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable advert. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author has userfied it. I have tagged the remaining redirect for speedy as R2. Blair - Speak to me 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph W. Burrus[edit]

Delete Not notable, except for the single event freak accident death. Mr. Burrus was not a professional magician; he was an amateur entertainer performing his first (and last) magic act. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. A tragic death. The trick, see would be to be OUT of the coffin before it was lowered in the ground and buried.( Don't try this at home). Edison (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E as mentioned above. Markovich292 05:41, 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 - Nabla (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three's Christmas[edit]

Unsalvageably incoherent plot summary of non-notable single TV episode. No other Three's Company episodes have articles Dawn Bard (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Pedro (talk · contribs) as G12. Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie stoe johnson[edit]

Non-notable cruft Ziggy Saw dust 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Did you revert your own edit to mark the page for deletion? -- Swerdnaneb 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent AfD is not for cleanup. This page needs an overhaul. It might be easier to delete it and start over. The subject easily meets the notability requirements. obit school NPR. -- Swerdnaneb 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, given the references. Tag for hella cleanup. Argument for deletion seems to be WP:CRUFTCRUFT. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G12? I would bet my bottom dollar that this is a copyvio from the original author's book. I have tagged a similar page over here. The only reason I haven't tagged this one is that there doesn't appear to be a "sample page" that I can point to. And I'm not spending the money to buy the book from the press. There are some big issues with WP:COI here. Anyone else? -- Swerdnaneb 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it! Tagged. -- Swerdnaneb 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK railfan jargon[edit]

Trivia, violates several points of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (especially the points about it not being a dictionary, manual, and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters! Things such of this have no reason for even existing on Wikipedia since they are a barmy list of slang. This is not the forum for lists of slang and jargon. It should be expunged. Bolly Nickers (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. railfan jargon Gwernol 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the article is generally properly sourced. It is not trivia. The article has been kept twice before at AfD and has been improved since then. The nominating editor's bias is shown by the use of schoolyard taunts and personal attacks the he feels are necessary when stating his case. Gwernol 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is exactly the kind of thing that should not be on Wikipedia. There is no need for any sort of slang list of any kind. This no doubt will have all the foamers defending it to the hilt. --Timmins Dave 08 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult other editors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly well-sourced and discriminate list. Seems to be a bad faith nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the terms listed are also used in the rail industry and not just by railfans. Every entry in the list has at least one footnote pointing to a reliable source and terms are now vetted for accuracy and verifiability before they are included in this list. Slambo (Speak) 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contributing editors have gone out of their way to source independent references for the terms listed in the article, many of which are widely used in railway periodicals and other publications. As previously mentioned, unsourced entries have been removed. At the time of the previous AfD the list was still largely unreferenced. EdJogg (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-sourced, well-defined list. And agree with 10lbHammer that the nominator severely needs to moderate himself. The languge used is neither necessary nor appropriate. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced, encyclopedic, and objectively defined material KleenupKrew (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and encyclopedic. The nominator is cautioned against ill-founded nominations. Edison (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Whilst the article at the beginning of the year was quite poor, with the majority of entries unreferenced, a lot of editors put in a lot of work to provide verifiable references for entries that have been kept. Unreferenced entries have been moved to a sub-page so that they can be restored when a verifiable reference can be found. Note that the nominator has not notified any editor of the proposed deletion either. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Mjroots - if this nomination had come at the beginning of the year I would have supported it as it was a complete mess, comprising of a few good facts mixed with original research, things made up and general fancruft. However, some determined editors have cleaned up this list to the state it is now, and whilst not perfect it is well referenced, and in a state to be used by non-enthusiasts to expolain terms that they may not be familiar with. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept as it has been extensively overhauled recently by editors who have meticulously sourced references and removed the fannish references, unverifiable slang and plain nonsense (against some opposition). A few months ago i would be 100% behind removing it but now i believe it comes up to wikipedia standards as seen in many other articles. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We found this article by hitting the "random article" button and were not suprised that this is something that someone feels should be deleted. This is a list of trivia and is not encyclopedic. Just because something is well sourced does not mean that it is a list of trivia and/or pure fancruft. The slang or jargon terms can be mentioned on the respective pages, provided they are encyclopedic worthy enough to have their own page. This may be an ill-founded nomination created out of spite, but it should be overlooked since this is something that does violate several of the What Wikipedia is not tenets. --Souvigny (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination based on a misinterpretation of WP:NOT. Yes, slang does belong on Wikipedia, as long as it is sourced.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This article is a usage or jargon guide, therefore it should be deleted. Case closed. --Kitsap Beach (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Contents/List of glossaries, which links to a number of other similar articles, is an index to information on Wikipedia. Glossaries of this type are encyclopedic as entry points to further information. Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists. This article is a glossary; it is a "page [that] presents definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." Slambo (Speak) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kitsap Beach is a suspected sockpuppet of Bolly Nickers, the nominator for the deletion of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for all of the "keep" reasons expressed above by others. —BMRR (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename "List of UK railroad jargon." I think that the nominator has gotten confused about the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide" policy, which I think was (in spirit, at least) designed to prevent articles on single terms. This article is so well-sourced that it demonstrates that railroad jargon itself is notable. Would the nominator want to muck this article on Glossary of poker terms? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - we don't have railroads in the UK! <g> Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been mooted that a revised name might be appropriate for this series of articles: something along the lines of "Glossary of UK rail-related terminology", which avoids the troublesome terms 'railfan' and 'jargon'. This does assume, of course, that the result of the AfD is 'Keep'. Further discussion regarding suggested names should take place at Talk:List of U.S. railfan jargon#Name change, rather than this AfD page. EdJogg (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I'm still going to express my feelings on the matter. I agree with Kitsap Beach and feel that these sort of jargon guides do not belong in encyclopedias. Does Microsoft Encarta or Encyclopaedia Brittanica include any such guides? I'm rather curious. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there are many thousands of articles found in Wikipedia that would not be found in Britannica. —BMRR (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for all the "keep" reasons stated above. Don't tell me that lists like this aren't encyclopedic. ----DanTD (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, interesting list. As noted, I wouldn't object to seeing the article moved to a name which sidestepped the word "jargon". We have articles on lists of Internet memes and I think this list is similarly appropriate. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of trivia and jargon. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Well referenced, and by the sounds of the nom it is done as a hate thign against us railfans. In the event of deletion a copy will be railfan_jargon here for everyone's delectation! BG 7 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequately sourced, and the rather venomous language in the nom ("This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters!") was completely unnecessary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:20, 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 - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. railfan jargon[edit]

Trivia, violates several points of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (especially the points about it not being a dictionary, manual, and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters! Things such of this have no reason for even existing on Wikipedia since they are a barmy list of slang. This is not the forum for lists of slang and jargon. It should be expunged. Bolly Nickers (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is the 2nd nomination of this article. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK railfan jargon (3rd nomination) Gwernol 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the article is generally properly sourced. It is not trivia. The article has been kept once before at AfD and has been improved since then. The nominating editor's bias is shown by the use of schoolyard taunts and personal attacks the he feels are necessary when stating his case. Gwernol 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this article is not a manual - it doesn't tell anyone how to do anything - nor is it a dictionary entry - it doesn't define the term "list of US railfan jargon" - nor is it an indiscriminate list of information - the sources are used to define what is included and there are well-defined criteria for inclusion. There is no policy basis for this nomination. Gwernol 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article generally is referenced, and verification issues can be addressed as was done with List of UK railfan jargon, bad fa—ith nomination. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep IMHO, this is a bad-faith nom. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is exactly the kind of thing that should not be on Wikipedia. There is no need for any sort of slang list of any kind. This no doubt will have all the foamers defending it to the hilt. --Timmins Dave 08 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to insult other editors with derogatory terms like "foamers". Please keep your arguments civil and base your rationale on policy rather than your personal animosities. Thanks, Gwernol 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly well-sourced and discriminate list. Seems to be a bad faith nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though the page title is "List of U.S. railfan jargon", a large portion of the terms used in this list are used in the rail industry press. The references list at the end of the article includes Trains Magazine (which regularly features stories and advertisements intended for rail industry professionals), GE Transportation Systems (note 58 refers to [7] at GE's website), Railway Life (the official employee journal of the former Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railroad), Bridge Engineering (published by John Wiley and Sons), National Railway Equipment Company (note 57 refers to [8] at NREC's website) as well as the lexicographer's journal American Speech. There are numerous terms with references found dating back as far as 1916, and with an even more thorough search, I could probably find a large number of other reliable sources for these and many more terms. Slambo (Speak) 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-sourced, well-defined list. I'd also suggest that the nominator consider moderating his tone in future noms: there's no need for uncivil language. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced, encyclopedic, and objectively defined material KleenupKrew (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced and encyclopedic. The nominator is cautioned against additional bad-faith nominations, which this and the UK one appear to be. Edison (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for all of the "keep" reasons expressed above by others. I would also add that the majority of these terms are used by professional railroaders as well as railroad enthusiasts. —BMRR (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article generally well sourced, any unsourced entries can be dealt with as per List of UK railfan jargon, bad faith nomination. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Well sourced article and researched. Bad faith nomination Dex1337 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We found the List of UK railfan jargon article by hitting the "random article" button and were not suprised that this is something that someone feels should be deleted and we also found that the American version is also up for deletion. both are lists of trivia and are not encyclopedic. Just because something is well sourced does not mean that it is a list of trivia and/or pure fancruft. The slang or jargon terms can be mentioned on the respective pages, provided they are encyclopedic worthy enough to have their own page. This may be an ill-founded nomination created out of spite, but it should be overlooked since this is something that does violate several of the What Wikipedia is not tenets. --Souvigny (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because terms are used by railfans doesn't mean that they aren't used in the rail industry. The professional railroaders I know personally use the same terms in their work environments on a daily basis. Slambo (Speak) 15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is that case, then if the term is important enough, it should be listed in the article about the subject. This list and the other are prime examples of What Wikipedia is not! --76.160.223.252 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. I've heard all of them used by professional railroaders, and they are listed on the individual articles (just to pick a few at random, see ALCO RSD-15 for Alligator, Flashing rear-end device for FRED, and BNSF Railway for pumpkin for example). Glossaries on Wikipedia have long-standing and wide ranging precedents in a large number of specialization areas; see Category:Glossaries for a number of other examples of this type of article. As this article's content relates only to terms that are used when discussing the rail transport industry in the United States, it is not an indiscriminate list. Slambo (Speak) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the guidelines and I honestly don't see how this list violates any of them. Maybe I'm missing something...? —BMRR (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This article is a usage or jargon guide, therefore it should be deleted. Case closed. --Kitsap Beach (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it also says, "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang ... are desirable." (Emphasis added.) The editor who nominated this article for deletion specifically used slang as a reason why the article should be deleted, which would seem to contradict Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject. —BMRR (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Contents/List of glossaries, which links to a number of other similar articles, is an index to information on Wikipedia. Glossaries of this type are encyclopedic as entry points to further information. Slambo (Speak) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists. This article is a glossary; it is a "page [that] presents definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." Slambo (Speak) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kitsap Beach is a suspected sockpuppet of the Nominator for deletion of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename "List of US railroad jargon." I think that the nominator has gotten confused about the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide" policy, which I think was (in spirit, at least) designed to prevent articles on single terms. This article is so well-sourced that it demonstrates that railroad jargon itself is notable. Would the nominator want this article on Diner lingo 86ed? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been mooted that a revised name might be appropriate for this series of articles: something along the lines of "Glossary of North American rail-related terminology", which avoids the troublesome terms 'railfan' and 'jargon'. This does assume, of course, that the result of the AfD is 'Keep'. Further discussion regarding suggested names should take place at Talk:List of U.S. railfan jargon#Name change, rather than this AfD page. EdJogg (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for the same reasons as List of UK railfan jargon. ----DanTD (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is vital information to spread around and Wikipedia is meant to be a wealth of knowledge. This would belong in an encyclopedia, thus it deserves to be in a Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.14.0 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of trivia and jargon. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced list. Unnecessary hostile language in the AfD nom doesn't help. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 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. Pigman☿ 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Welch[edit]

Unreferenced - violates WP:BLP almost to the point of being an attack page. Removing unsourced accusations woule leave insufficient notability. dramatic (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —dramatic (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced, and in the meantime I have removed the BLP violations.-gadfium 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well below WP:BIO even if there were sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't show up on Google, which he would if he was a politician or skateboarder of any significance. --Helenalex (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources or assertion of notability. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Finally a WP:BLP argument in a deletion discussion that I can agree with. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:53, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Paul[edit]

Notability is not established and the article is written more like a publicity release. Of the sources, one is subject's own company, and I doubt the US Patents in themselves confer notability. Author may have WP:COI because inserts references to the subject in other articles. At best, needs reliable third-party sources. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's actually quite a bit of coverage of his creations for movies as well as private clients. Google News Archive search Needs rewrite to sources and for tone.--Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo/advertising and apparent vanity article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, edits will be made soon to comply with guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C6VETTE (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the fact that the sourcing is coming primarily from pay-per-read sources usually sets off alarm bells in my head, but there's so much of it that I think Mr Paul may meet the "third-party coverage" notability requirement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 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. John254 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Theatre (Halifax)[edit]

Contested prod. Playhouse with no evidence of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has remained a one line stub for almost two years, since its creation, with multiple editors calling for Merge, Deletion and even a Speedy Delete, from me. What is mentioned in the article, other than the references Eastmain has just placed on the page, is already stated in the Halifax, West Yorkshire article. However the theatre has been taken over by the local Town council and come to the end of an extended period (2-3 years) of refurbishment. It was in its heyday a very popular entertainment venue and may again prove to be one, though at the moment it is not. If the article can be upgraded with a history of it, name changes etc, and images inside and out, possibly historical ones, then it would be worth keeping, rather than being reinstated at a later date. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the rewrite of the article, I am switching my vote. Nice work!Ecoleetage (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expanded with reliable sources - as a 100+ year old theatre there must surely be some decent sources out there to expand this article. Provided the article gets the updates Richard Harvey suggests above, I'd be happy to see it reamin on here. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax, West Yorkshire. Article can be re-created and expanded when more sources found.--Aervanath's signature is boring 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article already has three references from reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three references in a local paper are enough to establish that the theater exists, the question is,is that enough to establish that it is notable? Pastordavid (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild observation Can I ask if any famous shows or performers appeared at the theater? That would be notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- information Current Theatre 'Run List' (edited from Oct 2007 - June 2008):- 28 Oct 2007 - Queen (band): 3 Nov 2007 - Lenny Henry: 26 Nov 2007 - Jimmy Carr: 29 Feb 2008 - John Gordillo/Geoff Norcott: 20 Apr 2008 - Jethro: 1 May 2008 - Dara Ó Briain: 3 May 2008 - Sean Lock: 6 May 2008 - Russian State Opera of Siberia. Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) performed there in December 2007 [9] Additionally Status Quo is scheduled to appear there in October 2008:- [10] and Paul Weller (singer) on 5 May 2008. *I have also found a reference to a notable event from 40 years ago, when a knife was thrown, from the crowd, at Little Richard whilst performing on stage there. See:- [11], which I feel makes the article sufficently notable to Keep. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment actually, if you read your source carefully you'll see that the knife wasn't thrown at Little Richard on stage at the Victoria Theatre, but that he performed there in 2005 ("Almost 40 years later, I find myself in another Yorkshire hall, watching Little Richard" - the "other Yorkshire hall" mentioned is the Victoria Theatre). I have rewritten the article to hopefully assert notabilty, and have provided references.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Error noted :( it was a long day ) and the item is now struck through. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive re-write by JediLofty now clearly establishes notability, well-sourcedness, etc. (Is "well-sourcedness" a word? Well, it is now.) Good job, JediLofty.--Aervanath's signature is boring 11:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable - but could do with some information on the actual building and more on the history - not much listed for 100 years!. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 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 speedily deleted under WP:CSD G11, advertising. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel on demand[edit]

Unsourced advertising spam garbage Ziggy Saw dust 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was unanimity that the article fails to meet WP:MUSIC. In addition it is wholly unsourced. TerriersFan (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Raps[edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced Ziggy Saw dust 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Bots is a red link, and none of the other artists seem notable. Furthermore, I can't find any reliable third party sources for this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable album by artists who don't pass WP:MUSIC. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no demonstration of nobility per WP:MUSIC - or WP:V - WP:RS. This borders on Speedy territory. B.Wind (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable parody album that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 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 weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim P. Slaton[edit]

Failed recent CSD, I was advised by the declining editor to list it here to see if I could establish consensus for deletion. The article does not appear to assert notability and is badly written (although the latter is not actually a deletion criterion). George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 08:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, he actually does have GNA coverage, but the article is in terrible shape. --Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone edit the Jim P. Slaton article for the editor? How does this article get fixed so it doesn't get deleted? I know Jim Slaton and he is an amazing dude! Let me know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.107.45 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep so it can get improved. He apparently has won enough prizes and been the subject of enough work to be notable. DGG (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, needs urgent cleanup, but there appears to be enough material in GNA as above to construct a decent article out of it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Potential bad faith nomination. Give articles a chance before nominating them so soon after creation. WilliamH (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Burt[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable Ziggy Saw dust 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. There were two references in the article at the time you nominated this, one of them a New York Times profile. Please look at articles more carefully before rushing to the AfD button -- your hastiness causes other editors more work than is necessary. Oh, and for the record, keep: clearly meets WP:BIO, even in the stubby state it's in. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It was stubbed with two references for notability in two areas (crime and pro-life). He's related to a number of organizations and individuals. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. It isn't really unreferenced, as Quasi points out, and the NYT profile gives plenty of evidence of his longterm anti-abortion activism even apart from his connection to Griffin. (And a quick Google bears this out as well.) It's in poor shape, but it isn't really a deletion candidate. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the cleanup.
Keep I don't see a problem here. Jpmonroe (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be nice if we could add more biographical information here (such as birthdates, places, etc), but the article appears to be well-sourced. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was put up for deletion less than a minute after creation. I don't know why Ziggy is so quick to nom. I doubt he had time to read it or check the sources. He was blocked right after a number of noms for misuse of twickle. Anyone want to speedy this as a badd faith nom? --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cbrown1023 talk 18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWCG-LP[edit]

nn Ziggy Saw dust 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Anturiaethwr 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs) Oh, come on, SineBot! Anturiaethwr 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided, but edging to keep The article is in poor shape, but the station is apparently a licensed station[12]. Regular FCC-licensed stations are inherently notable, but what are the standards for low power stations? DarkAudit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Put up the Columbus TV template and a TVQ link, along with a link to the network the station is affiliated with to edge it within notability. We can begin to at least get an infobox in there. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a low power station, I do not feel that there is automatic or inherent notability. They are less notable, in general, than regular broadcast stations. They should have substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. Does this one? Edison (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep FCC licensed station to serve the public, passes the N test for me. If digital subchannels, HD simulcasts of cable channels and TBN translators have their own articles, a start up low power can too. Mr mark taylor (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- they are as notable as any other station, especially if they provide their own programming. -- azumanga (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redirect -- The station is brand-new, so it has not had time to establish notability. A guideline for media notability suggests inherent notability for full-service stations, but requires more sourcing for low-power stations, especially those that do not originate programming. This station does not originate programming. It does, however, broadcast the full network schedule from White Springs Television, and so, rather than deleting the article, I recommend that it be changed to a redirect to the network. That way, if the station should establish independent notability, the article history is preserved and can be recalled. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 23 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 responses and obvious invalidity of dissenting opinion (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Da Sylva[edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced. Kill with fire. Ziggy Saw dust 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unreferenced is not a reason to delete -- it's a reason to see if references can be found. Given he's a pro player, sources are readily found to show he passes WP:ATHLETE. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has a profile at Eurobasket.com and appears to have represented Senegal internationally [13]. I'm not finding much else about him, but that's not surprising for a player like this. For the record, I don't subscribe to Eurobasket, and I doubt anyone here does, so I don't know what lies behind the paywall. Zagalejo^^^ 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jpmonroe (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Just playing professional basketball in France doesn't make you notable. He is about as notable as a backup quarterback in the Arena football league. The article doesn't contain any information about him anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblah5555 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ATHLETE, playing in a fully professional league, any league, does make you notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, professional basketball in France confers notability. And the fact that the article is incomplete is unfortunate, but not a deletion reason. matt91486 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by the letter notability as both a professional basketball player for Avignon in France and a Senegalese international basketball player. matt91486 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability requirement for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 02:11, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonia Consulting[edit]

Non-notable. Ziggy Saw dust 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

this lobby firm is notable for its connections with a Scottish Parliament supported charitable venture; because it has employed former MSPs including a disgraced member of the House of Lords; because the organisation it is connected with was investigated by the Scottish Parliament and because it also includes a former Pfizer lobbyist also associated with the 'non lobbying' SPBE. This has been a matter of political controversy in scotland and has featured in the press regulatrly. I will add some more sources.

--Davidmillerglasgow (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:COATRACK article for attacks on two of this firm's lobbyists. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable company, with references from reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, probably merge to Scottish Parliament Business Exchange as that appears to be the source of the notability/notoriety. Mind you that one is a borderline attack page too. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well-referenced article, not deserving of deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thinly disguised attack piece, but I think a neutral article could be written on the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astreal[edit]

Clearly non-notable band Ziggy Saw dust 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete under CSD#A7. So tagged. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all clear: an album with Pony Canyon and another with EMI makes them clearly pass WP:MUSIC C5. Keep and next time, READ the article and relevant guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quasirandom. Satisfies WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - Singapore band with two albums on a major label passes WP:MUSIC, but this article is in dire need of restructuring, additional citations (no RS are present in the current version of the articles), additional linking from other articles, and an infobox. B.Wind (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altamash Kamal[edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced Ziggy Saw dust 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep so it can be improved. Presently a low quality article, but was was of the board of the national telecom and is CEO of a major national company. Needs references. DGG (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that a few of the claims to notability are either false or unverifiable (I removed some claims about having a famous dog). Our article on Communications in Pakistan argues against his company being the first ISP. Also, I don't think the fact that his company created websites for notable clients impacts his notability. However, being on the board of the telecom and being a CEO might lend some notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, on the basis of being a verified director of Pakistan Telecom. I've added a few sources to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, on the basis of being a CEO and import businessman, per User:Bfigura above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 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. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Racer:The New Generation[edit]

CRYSTAL BALLING Ziggy Saw dust 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Airs in less that 2 weeks, thus not "CRYSTAL BALLING". DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As an announced (and sourced) part of the schedule for next month, this does not count as crystal-balling. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see things like the GTIV being put up for deletion for Crystal Balling. Just like this article it will be released shortly. There is enough sources for the article in question. As said above. It is an announced and sourced show. Rgoodermote 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crystal Ball is for topics for which information is sketchy or not officially released -- therefore speculative. Announced TV series and films, especially those in production and especially those due to debut in only a couple of weeks, do not fall under that category. And the fact a major network is airing it and it's tied into a well-known franchise covers off any notability concerns. 23skidoo (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and verifiable. Crystal ballery doesn't even enter into it Bfigura ^(talk) 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted via PROD. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise: List of Defined Terms[edit]

Garbage Ziggy Saw dust 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article already has a PROD on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably no real need for AFD here. It'll just get deleted soon without fuss. Friday (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per absence of delete preferences and retraction by nominator (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Beattie[edit]

Vanity page, notability not shown with third party reliable sources Scarpy (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be shown. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Keep agree with Russ. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; only primary sources cited. --Russ (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Changing vote to keep since independent sources have now been provided; the article still needs a thorough rewrite, but that's a different issue entirely. --Russ (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I am sorry if this comes off as sarcastic, however did you check anything before nominating. Just a quick Google News Search shows over 440 third party – credible – reliable and verifiable sources as shown here [14]. In the mean time, I am adding inline citations and references. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk

Comment:Notable people can still have vanity pages. Notability isn't established by searches, it's a quality of the article. If it's not citing reliable sources, then it's WP:OR. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let me get this right, “Notability isn't established by searches, it's a quality of the article”. So in other words, people like Bill Gates, Moses, Mohamed and Elvis are only in Wikipedia because they have well written articles? In addition, I take it you have not reviewed the article since cites and references have been added? Or is it that you do not think that Time Magazine or Al-Anon are verifiable, reliable, creditable or third party sources? Just want to make sure which of your arguments you would like me to address first. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – If by well written, you mean that they don't contain original research, e.g. that they demonstrate their notability by citing reliable sources for the information contained in them, then you understand me. But, you can't just say "Look, topic has X number of google news results so no matter how bad the article is, it needs to say." Al-Anon is a non-profit and does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in it's publications and would not certainly not provide a neutral point on Melody Beattie. Time Magazine would be an acceptable source for this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’m sorry, I do not believe I said this topic contained x number of hits, I believe I said; “…. Google News Search shows over 440 third party – credible – reliable and verifiable sources as have shown here [15]…”. Regarding Al-Anon are sure you want to state that; “… does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in it's publications and would not certainly not provide a neutral point.” I believe you will find more than just a few individuals from Schoraly works that may disagree, as shown here [16]. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure about Al-Anon. The number of times an organization is mentioned in journal articles does not mean that organization's publications have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy.

Search results can be misleading. Google News indexes a lot of non-reliable sources, and not every hit (in fact most hits) for names are usual not articles about the person, but times they were just mentioned in articles on another topic. There a lot of duplicate articles that increase the number of results, but not the number of unique sources. For instance, local papers often run something that was on the AP or UPI. At any rate, the number of search Google News search results is very far from the number of third party reliable sources on a topic. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Melody Beattie is a very notable writer in the addictions and recovery field. While there may be considerable debate as to the validity of her ideas on codependency, this does not mean that she is not, herself, notable. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep!!! Why on earth would this be deleted? Isn't inclusion a HUGE part of the very spirit of wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.6.123 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets notability criteria, despite low-grade text in article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:54, 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Invalid/inappropriate deletion rationale. Consensus forms that the subject meets notability through reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arul Chinnaiyan[edit]

What the hell? Ziggy Saw dust 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although very poorly written, it does cite reliable sources that indicate at least a measure of notability within his professional field. Improve, don't delete. --Russ (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I would like you to explain to me why the artcile does qualify for deletion. I can explain about the significance of the work if it is difficult for people from other areas of work to understand. vcpk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "What the hell?" is not a valid rationale for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep lots & lots of papers, large number of citations: 28 papers cited over a hundred times, two cited over a thousand times (really poor quality biography). Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I agree it is a poor biography. I hope others will help me improve. Thanks. vcpk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another low quality article, but on a notable figure as Pete has shown. (HHMI investigators almost always are, as are people in such positions as Professor of Pathology and Urology at the University of Michigan Medical School. The nom might to better to try to improve articles, and for the ones s/he is unable to improve, send them, and only them, to afd. DGG (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in very bad shape and needs considerable work. However, the subject is clearly notable. GoogleScholar search[17] gives top citation hits of 2030, 1600, 1054, 582, 340, 288, 279, 264, 255, 234, etc. These are huge numbers. H-index is 45 per QuadSearch[18]. Again, a huge number. Passes WP:PROF by well over a mile. Definitely a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added some biographical data to the article to make the subject's notability apparent, including info regarding various awards and prizes he received such as the 2008 28-th annual American Association for Cancer Research Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cancer Research. Also the fact that he holds a named Chair position at the UMich Medical School. However, the creator(s) of the article still need to do substantial clean-up and further work on it to get the article up to speed. Nsk92 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the cleaned up version seems to be notable and verifiable. However, if the nom could provide slightly more specific details, it would help us latecomers figure out what the original issue was. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a procedural !vote since the nominator did not bother to provide any rationale whatsoever for deleting the article. Come back when you know why it should be deleted. Seems a bad-faith nomination. Edison (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that the subject is notable and also comments on the absence of a deletion rationale. WilliamH (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trash The Dress[edit]

Self-explanatory Ziggy Saw dust 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No it isn't. Please provide an actual rationale for why you think it should be deleted, rather than improved. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- quite, this is something that a lot of people derive a lot of pleasure from as a branch of photography. There are four sites around the world dedicated to it. Searching Google for 'Trash The dress' finds these sites. they are there, it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phooto (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only rationales I can think of for deletion are WP:N and WP:HOAX. I've found non-trivial mentions in The New York Times, ABC News (slideshow), and the New York Daily News--and that was a very cursory search. Note, however, that these all refer exclusively to destroying one's wedding dress after the ceremony, unlike this article. (That said, the article itself needs wikifying and expansion, and the external links need pruning.) Anturiaethwr 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
Keep: Anturiaethwr got there ahead of me with sources. Clearly a verifiable and notable subject. Keep, clean up, and move to Trash the Dress -- that miscapitalization bugs me worse than most, for some reason. Maybe that was why the nomination. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expansion per Anturiaethwr, and I would suggest moving it to Trash the dress, but it is a notable phenomenon. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like that's been done. Anturiaethwr 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)

Comment Ziggy Sawdust - Can you explain why you think this should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phooto (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No proper rationale for deletion given. DarkAudit (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's an interesting field, and we're gathering data. Let this grow for a while. No reason for a delete Pljakobs (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've done a little cleanup and added a "References" section. Anturiaethwr 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
Keepsufficient references by now to establish notability.DGG (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to notable and sourced. A more thorough nomination would be appreciated next time though. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saw an article about this in PDN's annual issue on wedding photography, and put it on my mental to-do list. Glad someone beat me to it. I've added a reference to PDN (available in print and on line by subscription). Fg2 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per lack of a rationale for deletion. It was also AfDed about half a day after creation, during which time it's also been tagged a COI and notability concern without any talk page posts. Has already been moved to Trash the dress for proper capitalization. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer L. Trudeau[edit]

No evidence given that Ms. Trudeau satisfies the notability guidelines; the only thing that strikes me as possibly qualifying would be the Hopwood Awards; on the other hand, these are like University of Michigan scholarships as opposed to something like a Pulitzer Prize or a Nebula Award. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An entry reflecting a Native American woman author's emerging work is inherently unnotable, offering nothing of value to Wikipedia? Is that the argument? -- Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrudeau (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N, our notability guidelines. Also please read WP:COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply being Native American and/or a woman does not make an author notable per Wikipedia's guidelines as cited above. It's not that the work isn't valuable. The guidelines are objective, not subjective. Also as mentioned above, Wikipedia has a policy against self-promotion. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An almost unpublished writer except for a few stories on the internet. "Emerging work" is a confession of non-notability at present. DGG (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attribution of notability to credible and independent sources. Notability to come, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability for a writer (such as non-self-published paper books published by major publishers), just online writings. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN & WP:COI. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not yet appear to be notable. When she becomes more widely published and has third-party sources covering her, then the article can be recreated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:34, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Domination - Tour 2DVD[edit]

Following a complaint at OTRS I have removed a BLP violation [19]. This article is clearly written by the rpoducer of the album and relates to an unreleased product and is devoid of sources. It therefore fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL - It is also clearly original research. Needs to be deleted and only restored after release and when multiple independent sources can be demonstrated to show notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although unreferenced their are similar articles and with a bit of work it would be fine. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above !vote was removed by FGWQPR, so I assume they meant to change their !vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGWQPR (talk • contribs)

Delete As above. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. -- content is not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anawarhol (talk • contribs) 19:51, 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 16:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Märklin boxes[edit]

Unreferenced original research about packaging used by Märklin. Laudak (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically pictures of someones boxes which they wrote about, not encyclopedic. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An advertisement of random pictures of boxes. Not encyclopædic at all. Tavix (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Märklin article. Article does show the history of Marklin packaging. Note also that the creator has not been notified of AfD for the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Märklin article, since it has some merit, but not its own article. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (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 redirect to Karst (surname), a disambig page Laudak (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karst (name)[edit]

Delete no indication that this name is notable; WP is not the Dutch or Eastern European phone directory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Delete, would be better incoporated into another article as it does not really have much use on its own. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Monk and the Three Julies[edit]

nn episode of tv series Ziggy Saw dust 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I know the plot of the episode but don't know what show it is! --FGWQPR (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added an intro paragraph that should take care of that. Anturiaethwr 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete, but only after the article has been obsessively-compulsively rewritten. Non-notable individual episode of Monk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can find a couple of reviews of the episode, here and here; if anyone disputes their reliability as sources, though, I won't object. (More than a few of the Monk episode articles should be tagged for notability, but I suspect there are reviews out there by independent sources, should anyone care to look.) Anturiaethwr 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't Delete I am using my own words and not copying any sources or plagiarizing. I saw the episode at least a dozen times.

Comment. I don't think anyone thinks you plagiarized, Dthdc4, but I don't think that's the issue here. The question is whether this particular episode merits an article on Wikipedia. If it's been the subject of non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable sources, then it is notable; if not, then the article should be deleted. By the way, why did you add a table to the top of this AfD? It makes the page all wonky. Anturiaethwr 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)

Comment: Did you notice how many Monk episodes have synopses? They are not being considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.70.226 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. And just what the spiroratstar is wrong with SineBot today? It hasn't tagged Dthdc4's unsigned comment in the half hour it's been there, but it almost instantly tags mine--right after the signatures. If anyone knows what's going on, could you let me know at my talk page? Thanks. Anturiaethwr 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Problem solved. AnturiaethwrTalk 02:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other TV show episodes have entries, why not this one? --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:40, 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 speedily deleted under WP:CSD G11 advertising. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indo Lighting[edit]

Unsourced advertising Ziggy Saw dust 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion for blatant copyright violation -JodyB_talk 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Wragg[edit]

Clearly non-notable, unsourced, wall o'text, textbook example of advertisement Ziggy Saw dust 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO, WP:COI ... JohnCD (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Consensus forms unanimously on the inherent notability of school districts and comments on the deletion rationale. WilliamH (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Department of Youth Services Schools[edit]

Non-notable as all Hell Ziggy Saw dust 18:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as agreed on AfD, numerous times, school districts are inherently notable both as government bodies and as a repository for information on nn schools. Needs expansion not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The exact link here is a redirect to Alabama Department of Youth Services School District. That page is the one with the AfD tag. Are we to assume that you're meaning to delete the article, and not just the redirect? NOTE: The redirect can be speedy deleted per CSD R1 should the article be deleted JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to be fair to the nominator I have just moved the page to the correct title, hence the redirect. I am sure that he intended to delete the underlying page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just making sure things were sorted out :-) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. School districts are considered notable. This is a school district and a Google News search shows sustained WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is that all school districts are inherently notable. Isn't that documented on the AfD results page? and where did that shortcut go to, anyway? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I don't quite agree with the nominator: though the department seems to be notable, it's not quite as notable as Hell. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what seems to be consensus. School districts are notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:41, 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 keep per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Landscheidt[edit]

The page makes no claims for notability of the subject, and I don't think he is. Moreover, there are no reliable sources for just about everything on the page. I tried to add some cn's for the more obvious lacks [20], but they didn't last. There are no sources for his dob, place, that he was a judge (I happen to know that he was indeed an astrologer and wrote at least one published paper on climatology), for his claims about 2030, for the existence of his institure, for his awards, etc etc. The only real source [21] doesn't even support most of this stuff and is anyway unreliable William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work, however a quick tour through Google Books provided sources for some items, including his institute. As for awards, I was not able to find anything, however instead of deleting the article, the awards section should probably be removed. The "Cycles Research Institute" what ever that is, states: Landscheidt was an "author and publisher of many papers on cycles"[22] who knows if they actually gave him an award. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete There are actually at last 6 published papers, 4 of them at least in good peer reviewed journals. Note of them have been cited more than about 5 or 6 times, but he can't be dismissed out of hand. Still that's nowhere near an adequate record for an academic researcher. I leave open the question that he may perhaps be notable as a modern believer in astrology who did have peer reviewed papers. I've read at least one of them, and it avoided mentioning astrology. DGG (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete. Citation index is actually very low. Cited sources do not state notability of this person. I convinced by the arguments below. Let's improve rather than delete. Biophys (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Books, he is highly cited, [23]. Many of the source are in German however, so it may appear to someone that Theodor is not as well know as he is. For example here is a German news source discussing him. I ran it through google translator for those non-Germans [24]. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have the wrong meaning of "cite". Try google scholar William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do not, using Google books and showing the majority are inline citations in published books, shows he is highly cited. Just because you have an alternate method, that also searches papers, not just published books, does not discount the former. Hopefully you now know how to make use of a new tool, in a non-conventional manner. Your google scholars page shows his papers have been cited over 50 times collectively however, seems you did a good job of proving he, or at least his work, is notable. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, apparently the link William notes as unreliable is a research institute in Kazakhstan. They have been cited by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [25][26] --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And finally William admits to having a back and forth with this supposedly unnotable person. [27] (link readded with expressed permission) The link was posted by William, just in case any personal information is located on it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the ***** argument I've heard in a long time. Since when has talking to me been grounds for notability? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC). And... no, that website has *not* been cited by the FAO. Nor has the institute William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person and the institute have been, perhaps you should read the link provided, both of them. Please help me understand where I stated someone talking to you is grounds for notability, a bit of an ego it appears, or perhaps you just did not noticed that I was stating your nomination seems not to be based on the article nor its contents, but on a tiff you had online with the man one day, since the article is sourced and shows notability as consensus seems to state. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've back-and-forthed this on t:TL, so I direct watchers to there. In brief: the UN has *not* cited the website. It has used text 9about forest fires) from the websites author. IWS maintains that this makes the website a WP:RS. I disagree. Comment welcome (over there) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My full argument which you failed to fully articulate, is that the United Nations did not just cite, nor just use some words, but distributed an entire report by the research institute, making it reliable. I have asked William to present some proof that a research institute in Kazakhstan is not reliable, he has refused to, stating the UN thinking a source is reliable, does not trump him thinking they are not reliable. I keep asking for a source they are not reliable, and he either is refusing or does not have one. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep His name is bandied about sufficiently that he probably deserves an article. Really, he's an astrologer? I'm not the least bit surprised. This is a perfect snark in the making. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~He is not an astrologer.~~ (Jarl87 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)) Theodor Landscheidt expressly denied this in a back and forth with William Connolley back 2000. He has written numerous papers and at least 3 books. Here is one example [28]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarl87 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he was an astrologer (being dead, he isn't anything anymore), but wanted to pretend otherwise in order to sneak stuff into the sci literature. Thats why all his bio is sourced to dodgy astrology books William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read his books? Believing in or reading a horoscope does not make someone an Astrologer. Unless you have something more substantial than your word, which Theodore Landscheidt himself denied, then the astrologer reference should be removed. (Jarl87 (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You could try this.[29] It's such a muddled mish-mash that it's hard to follow, but it looks like someone trying desperately to find an underlying physical basis for their mystical beliefs. Representative quote: "In my book Sun-Earth-Man I have produced evidence that man's activity and even creativity is linked to the Sun's activity. Heliocentric constellations of planets are involved in this connection, as they regulate the Sun's activity via its oscillations about the center of mass of the solar system." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or this [30] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "we in astrology" bit is clear enough, innit? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know specific information about his doctorate degree? His article was published in Solar Physics. Here is the abstract. It is one of many examples where he was published in a scientific journal. Here is a image that references his DOB and date of death. (Jarl87 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Article already establishes notability, but should be improved nonetheless. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. John254 03:29, 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclosearch[edit]

Launched today, thus nothing of note yet is really possible and WP:CRYSTAL applies, with no assertation of notability also. Seems to fail both 1, 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (web) SGGH ^speak! 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) SGGH ^speak! 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability (yet). -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anturiaethwr 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
Delete While I don't like an article being nominated so close to its creation, this looks like blatant spam. Multiple redlink categories, spammy tone, article created the day of website launch, and an SPA creator. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:An IP removed the AfD tag; I replaced it and warned the IP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with JeremyMcCracken's reasons. Also, it looks like someone is listing links to this website in other articles, which, for me at least, raises some red flags. Tnxman307 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People need this. Plus Encyclosearch links to you.--4.244.33.68 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems like the article should stay so could u plz remove that thing now?--4.244.33.219 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag needs to remain in place as long as this discussion is open. Typically this is five days, unless there is reason for early deletion or early closure. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant self-promotion. Renata (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement for a website launched 21 April 2008. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save, Respect, Protect - Isn't the SS Free your partner?--4.244.36.241 (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Article of importance.--Ugabuga22222 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save - Anyone know the person who came up with this idea, its great!--4.244.33.225 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as G2 (test page) by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time wasted is life wasted[edit]

Clearly unsalvageable OR, essay, personal reflection ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, opinion, essay. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just rambling personal essay. Waste of time. ;o) Plvekamp (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal essay. (A worthwhile, though somewhat cliché, sentiment; the writing could use some work, though.) Anturiaethwr 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:The article is also tagged to be speedy deleted, CSD G2 (test page). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)

Delete definitely an essay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinewood School, Los Altos[edit]

This high school does not meet the notability requirements for schools. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - includes a high school. Several notable alumni and plenty of sources available. The article needs cleaning up and sourcing not deleting. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability_(schools) - A high school does not imply notability. Notable alumni do not imply notability. And they aren't _that_ notable, no offense to Şebnem or Eileen, both outstanding athletes. I don't think being the top basketball player at division 1 school automatically makes your high school notable enough for Wikipedia. (Disclosure - I went to school here for a couple years.) ErikHaugen (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Notability_(schools) is simply a proposal and a flawed one at that. The consensus through many AfDs is that high schools are notable. Notable sporting alumni go towards supporting the notability of the school's athletics program. Finally, the test is whether there are multiple sources available (not necessarily in the article) to meet WP:N and a couple of minutes spent searching shows that there are. TerriersFan (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If HS are automatically notable, then fine. Doesn't seem right, though, and it would be nice if that page were updated to reflect that. What are the sources? I couldn't find many other than sites that review every private school, etc. Do local smalltown papers covering the cross country team's success count? I really don't think there's anything noteworthy about this school vs. any other small private school. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may be a mess, but searches show abundant WP:RS coverage to fix it. Also, multiple verifiable alumni, including at least one that's not yet in Wikipedia, and multiple athletic titles help. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any WP:RS other than local papers that will give a few column-inches every now and then to any local high school's sporting events and the like? I can't find any. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not one agrees that a high school is inherently notable, this article is well-sourced, high in content, and seems to pass the 3A test for schools (academics-athletics-alumni) that some people look for in notability. I appreciate the nominator's disclosure that he attended the school and does not believe it to be worthy of an article, but it's a fairly well-written article, and articles about secondary schools get preference over those about primary schools. Mandsford (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the quality of the article is at issue here, it's simply that this high school is on the low end of notoriety as far as high schools go. I concede that it is pretty well written, although some paragraphs could probably be pruned. Academics - I guess it's pretty good, are there sources that it is truly exceptional or something? Athletics - not really; it's really small and occasionally dominates the other really small schools in the area, such as recently in women's basketball; I don't think it's ever been the best in the state at any sport or anything like that. Alumni - no household names, certainly; 2 division 1a bball stars, a university professor, and a budding film director? ErikHaugen (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example calculations with roots of unity[edit]

No reputable sources given to estabilish notability of these results, or for verifiability, or to establish that it is not original research. (The only sources listed are a Spanish Usenet discussion, and a paper by Weber and Keckeisen that does not actually describe the subject of this article. When sources were requested on the Talk page, the author (User:Zahlentheorie) stated that the mathematical correctness of the article was sufficient.) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to some mathematics Wikibook (though I couldn't find a good target). The calculations themselves are not notable; as the title says, they are example calculations. Wikipedia is not a textbook. And it may be original research. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This material is suitable for a textbook, but not an encyclopedia. Sancho 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are the contents of the article correct? I didn't look very closely, but I found myself becoming suspicious. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I think it's correct down to the appearance of an undefined Φ, but profoundly trivial. Send it back to the newsgroup that produced it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think asking from an article that is about examples that it represent a profound contribution like a main article is misunderstanding the word "example." Examples can be extremely useful and complement an article in very useful ways, e.g. consider the example for Pell's equation, which explains how to solve them in a useful and immediately applicable way. As for this article, filtering coefficients of a series or a polynomial according to the value modulo some n of the exponent is a very useful technique that has many uses. Similarly, the article shows how to compute with roots of an equation using only the equation itself, without actually calculating the roots. This too is quite useful. As for the induction proof, I think it's a nice example of complete induction and maybe we could link to it from the Mathematical Induction page. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and these applications are trivial. Better to link to symmetric polynomial, which should actually explain the technique. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the entries on this page show, trivial is a term that is highly subjective. To establish triviality on Wikipedia, you'd need some kind of a vote, I think, at any rate more than the opinion of one contributor only. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a very simple test for Wikipedia articles: can you provide a reference to a reputable source that derives these results? If you can't find a reputable reference for these calculations (or at least very similar ones) then it is either (a) too trivial/obscure for textbooks etc. to use it as a useful example or (b) nontrivial original research. Take your pick; either way it is inappropriate for Wikipedia (independent of the "Wikipedia is not a textbook" arguments). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, the induction proof is a special case of formula #35 from the Mathworld article [Cyclotomic Polynomial], which if I remember correctly does fulfill Wikipedia's standards for reputability. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Great. Once you add in the proper citations (starting w/ mathworld and probably going to the other sources cited on that page) so we can see that this is not an original work, then everything will be kosher. We can't just infer, by looking at the article, that it is related to some preexisting work. That's why we need people who specialize in that sort of thing to provide citations and other references. To the layperson (and the editors at large) the authority of an article stems from the sources and the sources only. Add those sources and the article can stay. As it stands right now, with 2 sources (which do not count as verifiable for WP:N), it should be deleted Protonk (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello there, I added the link to Mathworld and checked the references of their article. It comes down to about five possible candidates for theorem #35. Unfortunately I am not at a university, so I don't have access to these specialized journals. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 11:17, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles P. Kindleberger III[edit]

He's done a lot for his community, but he's got absolutely nothing per WP:BIO. No coverage in reliable sources or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I actually thought I had prodded this a while ago. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:20, 13 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, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a good guy, but not notable. JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no apparent assertion of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanisław Krysicki[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO. His leadership of Scouting Association of the Republic is questionable (no Google hits [31][32][33], no third-party source, and no informations at Gazeta.pl Płock biography [34]). The rest of biography doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Visor (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Hardly notable and the creator did not respond to request for further refs or quotations for verification, the ref he claimed to have used on talk (not used in the article) is a memoir by the subject... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - semi-notable person, still the references are immaculate, no shadow of fraud even if some sequels of his life before the war are not completely covered. I would be surprised if they were. greg park avenue (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —greg park avenue (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - military judge and several other interesting details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) 16:00, April 26, 2008

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as entirely non-notable; no notable refs found; highly unlikely to become notable; application of WP:SNOW.- CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coolify thy wall[edit]

non-notable play - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. Play created and performed by one grade 8 class doesn't come close to meeting WP:FICTION. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete per Dawn Bard. Anturiaethwr 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:FICTION, but I'm tempted to say that it meets WP:MADEUP ;-). Would need a re-write even if it did meet WP:FICTION ("The actors were payed zero dollars in cash, but they were happy that they were able to put on such a great performance" indeed!) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadrack Bogan[edit]

total non-notability, essentially a genealogy blog Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual. I'm sure he was a very amiable fellow, but as the article comepletely fails to assert any kind of notability, I think it has to go. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely WP:LOCAL significance. --Dhartung | Talk 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN Wishtoremainanon (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Hog Mountain House was the first hotel in the county. It was erected by Shadrack Bogan, who married Ann Fee in Augusta and moved to Hog Mountain in 1815. That makes him notable in my book--DimaG (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question do The Hog Mountain House or Ann Fee have articles? And are you saying "country", as in the whole US, or "county", as in some little corner of Georgia? Please clarify. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:43, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Disregarding any possible 'delete' !votes, third-party sources were provided which buoy claims of notability. The article does, however, need to be cleaned up and rewritten to stay in line with what the sources actually say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Chiropractic[edit]

This looks like an attempt by POV chiropractors to fork away from the main chiropractic article where finally some science based editors are now active. Mccready (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum CommentUpon a bit of digging, it seems like Mccready has selectively canvassed editors to delete this article. Take a look: [35][36][37][38][39]. Is this not a violation of WP:CANVASS? Given his disruptive history on chiropractic, I think this is a clear cut case of of an attempt to subvert what is clearly a notable article I think that admins should carefully look at this case... CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, out of those links, it points to three users who were notified, ~~one~~ of which has already made a !vote here with a valid argument. It probably should be consided prior to closing nonetheless, should either of the other users also come here.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, 2 out of the three have made a !vote. DigitalC (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss that? Agree with the canvassing concern then. It's hard to reach a real consensus when everyone brings allies to vote their way, on either side of a debate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn McCready about the canvasing. I would have found the AfD eventually anyway since I keep tabs of alt med articles, and the other contributor was already editing the article I believe, so I don't believe the vote has been particularily baised in any direction. Jefffire (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that Mccready deliberately cherry picked editors who a) shared his POV and more importantly b) have had disagreements with the lead author (myself) of the article. One only has to look at my Talk Page and archive to see what I mean. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the canvassing does not appear to have made a difference this is moot. User:Mccready has been warned (by me) not to do it again. If he abides by that then there is no issue there. Jefffire (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent Actually, I think there is cause for concern; I see your edits in the history, but neither of the other canvassed editors appear to have edited it, and one has !voted here already. We can't really know if these users would have found this article and/or AfD otherwise. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are correct then that would mean that there was at most one vote which was gained (assuming the editor in question could never have found it by natural means). Such a small effect is not cause for concern since AfD's are decided by consensus, not by numberical voting. The only serious issue was the act of canvassing itself, which will hopefully not be repeated. Jefffire (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true- I don't think the consensus has been altered. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nom's bias notwithstanding, this article does not contribute to the value of chiropractic medicine article; rather, this is a mere application of the practice which does not merit this sort of expansion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not merely an application of Chiropractic within the sports world, it is a specialty. DigitalC (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if cleaned up - the term does appear to be fairly widely used, but the {{cite}} uses need to be sorted out - there are a couple of {{{title}}}s and some references that don't have any kind of description at all. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the sources' title issues. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Citations 11 and 12 are still just bare links. Can they not be replaced with {{cite}} templates? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I disagree with the reasoning that this is a deliberate PoV fork. However, I am very dubious that this is a notable topic. Rather, it seams to be about a few very niche courses run by a few colleges coupled with some WP:SYNTH stuff about chiropractic use by sportsmen. Jefffire (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and not having significant sources as to its existence as a specialty or the use of the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search would have been beneficial...[40], [41], [42] amongst the 4800+ hits at Google Scholar [43] CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable in any way. Kind of like the Veterinary chiropractic article. The article contains a handle of unreliable pro chiro partisan sources. Wikipedia should not be used for promotional pieces. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claim its not notable but 2 days ago you proposed [44] that we include it in the main Chiropractic article. You even wanted to bring the "unreliable" partisan sources. This is just another example of attempts at civil disruption that you have mastered over the past year. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly just a fledgling article but with sources out there such as this one and this one, I don't think a claim of "non-notable" really applies. I think there is an interesting article to write about here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, and the g-hits tend to indicate a wide use of this term. I sense a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a couple of those in favor of deletion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and echo the remarks of JeremyMcCranken. The skeptics will do *anything* to disrupt and censor quality chiropractic medicine material, a quick look at the blocklog of Mccready illustrates that he has been disruptive to this topic in the past and seems to be resuming an unhealthy fixation which needs an adjustment. I would also note that QG would fit into this category as well with Jefffire's recent comments and contributions to be less than helpful with respect to the topic at hand. Addendum, in terms of notability, Pubmed returns 60 hits "sports chiropractic" specifically and over 277 000 hits on Google right off the bat. That argument not supported by the literature search, and is weak at best. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article itself, which starts off by calling it an "emerging sub-specialty ". Yes, someone could naively use the term by accident, but I also see "are increasingly being approved " , "There appears to be an increase in the usage" , ". As part of a demonstration project" , "has steadily grown" , "Chiropractors' success in achieving acceptance on sport medicine teams is contingent " . all of this indicates that in the view of even thee promotors of the article, it is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have fluffed it DGG, but I was being honest and writing the words as cited. Had I known that being so NPOV would have been problematic I should have left no doubt. Suddenly sports chiropractors treating at the Olympics games isn't notable. Interesting. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think your did indeed write an honest article. But your interest in it led you to assume the subject is more notable than the sources actually indicate. Understandable, I'm not blaming you--you're not spamming; but nonetheless the specialty is not yet notable.DGG (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obviously notable. . . see the sources already given at the article. . . Plus I know there are lots more out there.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~I don't know that it is an EMERGING specialty, and therefore~~ the article could probably use a clean-up. However, it is a specialty (at least in North America), as seen by ccssc.ca and acbsp.com. In Canada for example, for a chiropractor to be elligible to be on the Olympic Core Health Care Team, they MUST be a Fellow of the College of Chiropractic Sports Sciences. DigitalC (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made note of this and changed the status to reflect it's stature in NA and OZ

Delete, not notable per DDG, gazing into the future.... Shot info (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notible topic needing its own article. Why it was nominated for deletion a day after it was started and not allowed to develop into a good article is beyond me.--Hughgr (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scanning the internet, I see reference to major media discussing this subject (NPR, CNN, Newsweek, NYT, WSJ etc) with its practitioners. I also see a specific journal archive with an evidence based approach over a dozen plus years, I see books on the subject. DigitalC's point that the Canadian Olympic team requires the FCCSS seems doubly notable. Disclaimer: I have *never* been treated by a chiro (or PT). Looks notable with plenty of potential cites. This article seems to be developing much faster than most. Looks like a (don'tlikeit) sink or swim, or be Shot afd nomination.--I'clast (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a POV fork. This is not a recognized subspecialty like "Sports Medicine" is to real medicine (that is, medicine supported by a wealth of scientific analysis). There is no need for this article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as such and merge referenced material to chiropractic article - what concerns me is the heterogeneous nature of the article. We have (1) a Canadian degree/subpecialty, then (2) what it may be equivalent to in the US, then (3) general notes about the use of chiropractors, not sports chiropractors as per this spubspecialty, in sports...thus it could be construed as an OR synthesis. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt appears as though the anti-chiropractic brigade has been recruited in full force to voice their opinions here. Users Mccready, QuackGuru, Jefffire, are all mega skeptics who essentially want to shut this article down in spite that it's notable and more importantly, there's indexed, peer-reviewed research that proves its notability as a subspecialty. User Orangemarlin personally does not like me and has resorted to continuous personal attacks against me (anti-science) and he was recruited by Mccready (see diffs above) as was Jefffire. QuackGuru suddenly flip-flopped, first agreeing it was notable and wanted it even included in the main article (which I did not suggest) and then abruptly changed his mind, probably due to an offline email. Looking at his and Mccready block log you'll see a pattern of disruption at Chiropractic, and this is simply an extension of it. I propose a topic ban, at least, for those two after the dust has settled here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note, it seems that some long lost editors have been dusted off and pushed into the "Keep" fray. I recommend that there is some (a lot) of AGF, but since CS seems to be pushing for topic banning, I suggest that he joins in the ban, or else his cries could be construed as a little bit of crying wolf. Shot info (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this is a POV fork. It is natural that articles spin off into more narrow sub-articles as the body of text grows. If some editors view the article as POV they are free to add balancing references. MaxPont (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there is an artificial synthesis between the subspecialty diploma and the use of chiropractors in sports. If there are references that link the two they need to be added, otherwise there both facts should be on main chiropractic page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused of your comment re: artificial synthesis, Casliber. In order to treat at the Olympics you need to possess a sports chiropractic fellowship; both in the US and Canada. What kind of reference are you specifically looking for and perhaps I can track it down as I was going to flesh out the article over a few weeks. I didn't anticipate getting nominated and chopped in 1 day. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 10 makes a few mentions of chiropractors but says nothing of this qualification of being a prerequisite. Ref 9 is the newsletter of the publication which says this as well but does not say that these chiropractors are required to be sports chiropractors. What is needed is an independent ref that states that this subspecialisation diploma is a prerequisite for work in the field. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber. I do have memos indicating that DCs must have their FCCSS (or equivalent) to work in a clinical capacity at the Olympics but I need to track down a source that confirms this. Cheers, CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is the crux of it for mine, so let me know when these come in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, I found a passing mention of the requirement here but I know there is a much better source out there. It's a start, I believe the paper by Theberge(2008) at the Sports Chiro page has mention of this as well. It should be read is it proves beyond any doubt, the notability of the topic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chiropractors can achieve Diplomate status in Sports after 300-500 hours of study in a Chiropractic or Medical school. It is required in order to become a member of the Olympic Medical Board. Anthon01 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some "keep"ers are getting a bit worked up over this- please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The arguments presented will decide this one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the subject is notable, and the sources in the article already are sufficient to establish notability. The article itself needs to be toned down in order to come in line with the sources cited, but that is an issue for the article itself, not afd. I don't think that the behavior of the main editors for the article in this entry is very pleasant, but I'm sure it comes from defending a profession like chiropractic. Again, like the article issues itself, their conduct on this page should not influence the destiny of this article. Protonk (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to chiropractic or weak keep. I agree with Protonk. This article definitely needs a great deal to get it NPOV, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI would like to apologize if the tone of some of my posting breeched a civil line; it's just extremely frustrating at times dealing with the tactics of certain editors. I was somewhat miffed at the time too because what I feel is a perfect example of WP:INSPECTOR and any untoward comments should be taken with a grain of salt and knowing a bit of the context behind them. Regardless, I am sorry if there's comments that editors would like striked out then I can do that as well. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several of the cited sources do not correspond to the points they are cited for. Few if any support the claim that "sports chiropractic" is generally recognized terminology with a clearly understood meaning. This article has several aspects of original research, and is therefore inappropriate. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 21:00, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Virtual Aviation Organization[edit]

Despite two prior nominations nothing has been done to establish the notability of the subject in the article, and the article still contains no reliable sources -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 80,000 members is pretty good. Wikipedia is not paper. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Membership is irrelevant. It's just a big number. Notability and reliable sources are what's important. DarkAudit (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, by the way, delete for lacking what's important there. DarkAudit (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, I must agree with above editors. I have been unable to find any reliable, third party, sources. Icemotoboy (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership is not irrelevant. Organisations with large groups of members are notable-- same as best sellers in books, market share in companies. DGG (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they must still meet the verifiability policy, which this doesn't. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's explanatoin. -63.17.15.226 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC) — 63.17.15.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - you want to keep, per DGGs explanation, even though the next line points out that it fails the verifiability policy? (edit - I'd just like to point out that this is the only edit 63.17.15.226 has made so far!) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fairness to IP users everywhere, it is pretty hard to maintain an edit history on a dynamic IP ISP, which most people use. It's when you get a bunch in the same range (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclosearch) or same geographic area, then it's suspicious. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The proliferation of IPs and their respective traceroutes makes me think you were right about this one, though :-) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is an independent, reliable source to confirm that there are 80,000 active members in the organization. The membership number is an impressive claim to notability, which would nullify a speedy deletion. However, the article still needs a source to confirm that the number is accurate and not puffery on the part of the organization.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to make a comment as a passer-by. This IVAO is as well known in the flight simulation community as the other network called VATSIM; I think deleting an article just because that in the article there's not yet a verifiable source saying that it is notable is ridiculous and is going too far. (How about the fact that one of the two dominant flight simulation web sites, flightsim.com, found it necessary to put it in their official announcement when IVAO just published a magazine? But wait, the Flightsim.com article got deleted too for the same reason, so I guess not.) If so, why don't we for example delete most articles on the world's places such as this and this and this, seeing that most of them are unheard of outside their local areas? I'm ready to bet that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles should be deleted by this standard. As someone who would rather see that IVAO actually be "not notable" and its article removed, what irritates me is not that someone is trying to delete this particular article, but that this is the sort of reason Wikipedia officially uses to delete articles. (And oh, my IP doesn't seem to have any prior editing history either, so you can all just disregard my comment.) -- 119.11.7.91 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)— 119.11.7.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Yes? So then how this is confirmed?: (VATSIM) "As of January 2008, the network has over 150,000 registered members." I don't see any verifiable source to confirm that. If you want to delete IVAO, delete also VATSIM for the same reason! This really gets me angry, when IVAO article is again nominated for deletion, while VATSIM is ok. Either remove both or none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.111.200 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) — 132.229.111.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment, the VATSIM article is very poorly sourced... but it does have some reliable sources, whereas the IVAO has none. In any case this AfD is for the IVAO, not VATSIM. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources mentioning VASTIM also mention IVAO. The article needs to be improved, but improvement is not impossible. some translation needed, maybe, A discussion of the changes in pilot training including IVAO, covered VERY briefly, Coverage in a flight sim website, although that one may not be fully independent, Google news coverage, making sure to select "archive" instead of "last month"--remember, MORE than half of these are false positives, but that does not make the other half not exist, and so on. Notable. Verifiable. Article needs work. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 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 redirect to Lovers' Requiem. Cbrown1023 talk 18:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Likes Candy[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, albums and singles of notable performers must still possess individual notability; this one does not; no CSD (yet) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can't find the video for it anywhere, i doubt it was even released as a single. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. No notability for this individual song. Victor Lopes (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be redirected to the artist page not deleted. Catchpole (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lovers' Requiem, the album the song is from, as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Dwyer (professor)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable academic. Being a Fellow of the IEE doesn't seem adequate for WP:PROF, which is the only biographical guideline which seems to apply. Dwyer function, which would, if accepted, also be grounds for at least putting some biographical information in that article, is also up for deletion by {{prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weak publication record, now at an unaccredited university. Former deputy head is not enough (former dean, maybe, but he's not that) and neither is fellow of IEE (fellow of the IEEE would probably be enough for me, but again, he's not that). Does not pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richmond is accredited in the UK and in the US; Dwyer was indeed previously Fellow of the IEE for many years; if the more complete biographical information had not been recently deleted, it would be clear that Dwyer was Department Chair at Richmond for more than twelve years, a Director of a postgraduate studies for two years and a Ph.D. external examiner at the University of Portsmouth. Dwyer is a full professor at Richmond.[Dwyerj] The preceding comment was added by User:Dwyerj, who created the article John Dwyer (professor). Nsk92 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I misunderstood the line "The DFES (Department for Education and Skills) in the UK DOES NOT list Richmond as a recognised "Degree Awarding Body" in Richmond, The American International University in London? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you David. The "recognition" section in Wiki-Richmond definitely needs correcting but I think our Accreditation VP should talk care of it rather than me. For sure, we are accredited to award degrees in both the UK and in the US. (Dwyerj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.243.250 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not ready to vote yet, but certain things about this article look strange. For example, the article claims that he used to be a "Deputy Head of the Computer Science Department at the City University of New York". I don't know what that means. I am very well familiar with the CUNY system and it consists of a large number of colleges, each with its own department structure. So there is no such single thing as "The Computer Science Department at the City University of New York". The colleges that comprise the CUNY system vary widely in standing and reputation, from the City College of CUNY to various community colleges. So at best the phrase "Deputy Head of the Computer Science Department at the City University of New York" is ambiguous and at worst it is misleading. Either way it needs to be clarified. I looked up Dwyer's webpage at Richmond [45] and the same ambiguous language is used there. Nsk92 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I worked at the City College School of Engineering (Dwyerj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.243.250 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was preparing to poke around in the Wayback Machine, but unfortunately all of cuny.edu is blocked. --Dhartung | Talk 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure what it adds to this case, but apparently Rudy Giuliani mentioned him, peripherally and not by name, as part of a campaign ad, as an example of somebody the INS was spending too much attention on when they should have been deporting criminals instead. According to this web page, which cites a 2000 Rochester newspaper story about his case, he was deported because he didn't have the proper visa to continue working at the US college that employed him after CUNY. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The research and publication record is very undistinguished, especially for such an active field as computer science. I could not locate any published papers that actually cite his work using GoogleScholar, GoogleBooks, etc and the h-index appears to be close to zero. Some of the publications listed, such as the first three items in Algana Associates, appear to be essentially self-published technical reports. The claim to having the Dwyer function named after him does not hold up either as this term does not seem to have been used by any-one other than Dwyer himself (Google and GoogleScholar turn up nothing relevant[46][47])The university itself does not appear to be properly recognized in the UK. In any event, the university Richmond, The American International University in London, hardly seems a place of active research. They don't even have a well-defined department structure. Thus all exact sciences and humanities are lumped together into a single "Department of Arts & Sciences" with the staff of 27 people, many of whom are adjuncts[48]. No graduate degrees in sciences are offered. The only claim to notability of any kind appears to be having been a fellow of IEE, which is not sufficient given the otherwise mostly blank research record. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Dwyer is an internationally respected teacher, having worked in top universitites in London and the United States. He was also Head of the Computing Department at my university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usangel16 (talk • contribs) — Usangel16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep. Dr Dwyer is an exceptional academic who is extremely dedicated to the education of his students. He was Dept. Chair at my University and has worked in several top universities in the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyEnever (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 April 2008— AmyEnever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you want the article to be kept, you need to argue that it satisfies some Wikipedia notability guideline such as WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:N. (Which in my opinion is clearly not the case here). Whether or not someone is "extremely dedicated to the education of his students" is irrelevant for notability purposes. The claim of being an "exceptional academic" is also not substantiated. There is no evidence that Dwyer's work has been widely cited by other scientists in the scholarly publications in his field (in fact, I could not find any published citations of his work at all). The publication list is rather short and several items there are essentially self-published. Being a Department Chair at a place like Richmond is not indicative of notability in view of the above discussion. From what I could tell by looking at his vita, the best place Dwyer has worked was the City College of CUNY. That is a good place, but it is no Harvard or Oxford, and having worked there, in and of itself, does not indicate notability. As far as I can tell, he clearly fails each of WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Dwyer was Chair of Arts and Sciences in Richmond and the university is properly accredited. Please note that wikipedia guidelines specifically advise that google scholar is not a strong measure for academic notability. Furthermore, quality of research counts above quantity of research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC) — Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please, give me a break. Yes, WP:PROF says that WebOfScience and Scopus are more reliable that GoogleScholar, but GoogleScholar can be used and is often used in AfD discussions as a quick test in determining academic notability. In any event, neither WebOfScience nor Scopus produce any hits for papers citing Dwyer's work either (or at least I could not find any, after quite a bit of searching). It is true that quality is more important than quantity. An yes, having one-two very highly cited papers may be enough to establish academic notability in some cases. But in this case we have no reliable sources that, per WP:RS that cite any of Dwyer's papers (forget about being highly cited, there seems to be trouble with his work being cited at all). So there are no reliable sources to substantiate that his work has made a substantial impact in his field. Nsk92 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I listed the three single-purpose accounts above at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dwyerj. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP All I can say is that Dr. Dwyer is a highly respected academic. I see people are making false comments about Richmond, The American International University and calling us meatpuppets and socketpuppets. Well that certainly is not the case. Dr. Dwyer was my Lecturer and advisor throughout my univeristy career going back several years, and all I can say is that he is a great academic and very well respected. Auggla (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) — Auggla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The statement "all I can say is that he is a great academic and very well respected" is not a good argument for keeping an article in WP. That statement is your personal opinion about him. Your opinion may well be justified, but you have to prove this by providing verifiable evidence to support your claim, per WP:V and WP:RS. You also need to prove, again by providing verifiable evidence, that the subject satisfies the requirements of one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Unless you do that, your vote here is not going to count for much, whether it says "Keep", "Strong Keep" or "Very Strong Keep". Regarding you being or not being a meatpuppet, again, it is your actions rather than your protestations that matter here. Look up WP:MEAT and WP:SPA. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In regards to my comments earlier which was said that it had no facts only expressed an opinion. Well if one types John Dwyer in on google it will lead to pages of wikipedia of all the text book publications he has, and of which I recall using during my studies as well. Regarding the guidlines, this states that he is of notable academic due to his textbook publications as well as used literature in courses. --Auggla (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (Note: I moved both Auggla notes here from the talk page of the AfD. Both of them had the same capslocked strong keep at the start, but each user only gets to list a single opinion on an AfD, so I left off that part when I moved this second comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Auggla, which textbooks are you talking about? Name them please and provide links to the results of the GoogleSearches you are talking about. If you mean the Algana Associates items listed in his WP entry, here are the GoogleSearch results for them: 1) "Algorithms: An Approach Using Puzzles & Brainteasers": 2 hits on Google, one of which to a Richmod website and another to Dywer's article on Wikipedia [49]; 2) "Speech Processing: An Interdisciplinary Approach": again, 2 hits on Google, one of which to a Richmod website and another to Dywer's article on Wikipedia [50]; "Circuits in Complete Graphs and Their Relations to Rapidly-increasing Special Functions": 7 hits[51], one of which to a website in Ruchmond, one to Dywer's article on Wikipedia and one to the Complete graph page on Wikipedia; the last link was added on April 12, 2008 (see the diff [52]) by an s.p.a IP editor 195.54.243.250 who had also edited Dwyer's wikipedia article. How is all of this evidence of notability? Has there been widespread or at least substantial use of Dywer's "textbooks" in other universities? If yes, please provide evidence of that. Do these "textbooks" even have ISBN numbers? Nsk92 (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - As a colleague of Dr Dwyer at the Uni, I am astonished that someone with so much (30 plus years) university experience, much of it as a senior academic and Department Chair, should be considered "not notable". Even more astonishing seems to be the fact that a wikipedia editor does not know that the Uni is accredited in the USA and in the UK. Are they supposed to doublecheck before making rash comments? If not, who is double checking the editors? Finally, who says that a long publication record is the only measure of notability - presumably those who have a long publication record but little imagination. Dr Mo Adda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.7.14 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says that a long publication record is the only measure of notability. The main and most reliable measure of notability is wide citability of the work of the person in question by other scientists in the field. As I wrote above, having one or two highly cited publications may well be enough to establish notability. Here we seem to have no citations of his work at all in published works by others. Nsk92 (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing at all that has been written in the article or in this discussion indicates any notability. If the subject of the article or his colleagues at the "university" (if any edits have really come from colleagues) had any self-respect they would be arguing for deletion of the article and this AfD discussion. Can't he/they see that the article and this discussion make him/them a laughing stock? I can't imagine any respectable academic institution will employ him after his antics, which will be accessible for a long time on this page via web searches that any prospective employer would undertake, or that anyone would wish to study at an institution that endorses them. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My views reflect the comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 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 Nomination withdrawn and the concerns of the "delete" voters have been answered. (Non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boggan (disambiguation)[edit]

Purports to be a disambiguation page but is purely a collection of red links, with no way for anyone to sort out whether any of these might actually be reasonable future article topics. Russ (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Comment Yikes, red link jackpot! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It can be recreated when (and if) any of those redlinks actually become blue. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unneeded. Per WP:MOSDAB#Red links, they should only exist on DAB pages if they are also (a red link) on a real page somewhere. The only entry for which that is true is Tim Boggan, one of the Ping Pong Diplomacy players.[53] He does seem to meet WP:ATHLETE. Once you remove all other entries ... there's no need for an article. I'm not even sure a hatnote is appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would it be worth replacing this with a redirect to Toboggan, as a short form of the word, until such time as the disambiguation is needed? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Boggan is currently an article about a race in a role-playing game. Replacing Boggan (disambiguation) with a rediretc to anywhere seems pretty pointless, becasue nobody is likely to type that into the serachbox. -- saberwyn 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, between the RPG race, the athlete mentioned by Dhartung, the slhortening/slang of toboggan given by Quadirandom, and a See Also to the slight difference in spelling that is Bogan and Bogan (disambiguation), you cound probably get a working disambig. -- saberwyn 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Oy -- I didn't even notice the RPG.) I'd support an edit to that. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've rewritten the disambig by cutting everything, adding Boggan and Tim Boggan as entries, and adding the disambig pages for Toboggan and Bogan. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasirandom (talk • contribs)
Keep, now looks like an acceptable (though minimal) dab page. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I withdraw the nomination. --Russ (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (but cleanup). Cbrown1023 talk 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural icon[edit]

The "subject" seems to be little more than a mere collocation: True, an article on it could say that A cultural icon is an icon of culture -- appending to each the parenthesis (whatever this word is used to mean; and these days it's often used to mean very little). For yes, it seems to be more widely used than natural icon, postural icon, plural icon, rural icon, intercrural icon, etc., but so?

While I don't enjoy criticizing my fellow editors, the article is junk, really -- as I've already said on its talk page. (Response so far: Silence.) Now, en:WP has lots of junk articles on non-subjects, and most are harmless enough, but this vapid phrase actually gets trotted out and linked to, e.g. from the dreadful start of Marilyn Monroe: my removal of this twaddle was promptly dubbed "preposterous" and undone.

Observing that that WikiProject Philosophy catered for Deep Thought as well as actual philosophy (the latter being an almost incomparably more rigorous enterprise), I appealed on the talk page of the Project for help in this article. Nobody there has yet shown any interest, and I certainly can't blame them.

An earlier article on this phrase was deleted via AfD, but I'm not sure if I can speedy this as it's not a re-creation; it's merely no better. -- Hoary (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, eponysterical. Second, half the life work of Camille Paglia is on this topic, and if Monroe is not a cultural icon, then I don't know who is (or ever was). Needs sources and a revamp, obviously, but I think it's also obviously a topic that both deserves a serious encyclopedic treatment and has the scholarly footing to back it up, even if it doesn't fit into systemic biases of Wikipedia contributors. --Dhartung | Talk 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think I can see why WikiProject Philosophy wouldn't be interested in this--it's sociological in nature. As a sociological concept, it's probably extremely notable, but I'll leave that to the more sociologically-minded to discuss. Anturiaethwr 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)

- Comment on Dhartung and Anturiaethwr: Perhaps my reading of Paglia was within the other half of her oeuvre: amusing stuff from an agony aunt for the dying twentieth century. Until I know what the "cultural" and the "icon" in "cultural icon" mean, it's hard for me to say what ("who"?) was or is a cultural icon and thus to deal with an assertion such as Dhartung's if Monroe is not a cultural icon, then I don't know who is (or ever was); still, in its present state the article seems to be a collection of salient examples of Youess-Americana; if I take "icon" to mean a visual representation and "culture" to have its wider sense (what might be called "civilization" if only it were civilized), then I'd discount Monroe as being three-dimensional, dated and dead, and would instead propose Image:AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg. However, before pronouncing in an encyclopedia article that this or that image (let alone person) was a preeminent "cultural icon", yes, I'd like to see some of Dhartung's "scholarly footing". To me, this term is incompatible with a huge percentage of "Cultural Studies"; but there's hope when Anturiaethwr asserts that "cultural icon" is a sociological term: sociology is (or can be) a social science, and not mere name-dropping and obscurantism. While empiricism can of course be naive, it needn't be; so let's see the genuine (research-based) scholarship on this stuff. Or would a regenerated article be merely an earnest distillation of the windy works of "Cultural Studies"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not sure we can have a conversation if all you're interested in doing is trolling. Cheers. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, right, trolling. (Should I be offended by this charge?) Conversation can wait a little ("PDFTT"); I await the promised scholarly footwork. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the much better article pop icon, which is well-sourced and essentially covers the same subject. The only difference is that this article would add things like "baseball", "Hollywood" and "Coca cola" to what author considers to be "icons"; and that's only because this particular article is all original research, with a gratuitously added footnote, so no merge. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop icons and cultural icons are not the same thing, however. One could argue that pop icons are a subset of cultural icons, but not the other way around. Regardless, "cultural icon" is a key concept in much cultural and film theory, it is a theoretical term with a different and more profound significance in academic scholarship than "pop icon", which doesn't have the same academic grounding. Pinkville (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a foul article, unsupported and insupportable in its present state. But "cultural icon" is a significant (i.e. notable) theoretical term in Cultural Studies and related disciplines. There is a large body of work devoted to the theory and analysis of cultural icons, so a Wikipedia article on the subject is appropriate and even needed. Such an article doesn't happen to be the one we are discussing, but it could be. I propose we keep this article and I (or preferably someone more interested in the subject) will rewrite and try to improve this article. Pinkville (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: "Cultural Studies" is a discipline? Hmm, its practitioners must kowtow to various philosophasters (Foucault, Deleuze and the rest); anything else? -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply: Maybe you'd prefer Theodor Adorno, Karl Mannheim, Walter Benjamin, Frederic Jameson, Stuart Hall, Marshall McLuhan, John Berger, et al... Like it or not, Cultural Studies is a field of study with the same (proven) legitimacy as Art History, Comparative Literature... Like any discipline there are charlatans that operate within the field, and there are insightful and illuminating thinkers. Pinkville (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - At least two of those are certainly worth reading. But McLuhan, oh dear, all that baloney about the hot and the cool, etc. His stuff's high on rhetoric, low on rigor. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has an OR issue, but not a bad start IMO, and definitely a subject worth having an article on. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but recreate. I agree with JeremyMcCracken and Pinkville that the subject is likely notable, however this version of the article is useless as a starting point. Delete it and start over. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be deleted to be re-written from the bottom; just open it up to edit and delete what's there (if it is bad enough that nothing can be saved). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a more general subject than "pop icon". If it can be improved, there is no reason for deletion. None has actually been presented, besides that the Philosophy Project doesnt think it within its scope. DGG (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Rejoinder: Right then: a terrible article, which so far as it's understandable is often plain wrong, what with its assertion that a particular brand of cola is incomparable, etc. Added to that, the suspicion that "cultural icon" merely means an icon (whatever that may mean) of culture (whatever that may mean), and that this is thus a mere collocation -- and that if WP is not a dictionary, it's certainly not a collocation dictionary. I see that the last dinosaur is a cultural icon (or dinosaurs are cultural icons), that cinematic smoke is one, that H C Andersen is one (and an oeuvre), that the Sacred Heart is one, and that so is the hooked rug. Or claimed to be, anyway. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Returned: Well it's no surprise that you've uncovered examples of the term used in an unscholarly or simply incorrect fashion... I could easily come up with similarly misguided examples of relativity, inferiority complex, et al, but such misuses do not invalidate the scholarly terms themselves. Pinkville (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this article is as hard to keep interesting and credible as the article on beauty and no one seems to be able to bring a non-USA-oriented POV to the article, which is desperately needs to remain in Wikipedia. Icarus of old (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be a horrible article, but that is no reason to delete it. There is a lot of potential for an article such as this. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god this is a notable and well-defined subject (Keep) Google Books lists over 800 books that deal with the subject, some of which are exclusively about the subject. Yes, the current article is far poorer than it no doubt shall be in the future. That's what you call a stub. You improve stubs. You don't delete stubs. Has everybody forgotten how to do a little research and a little editing? "Hmm, this article's not very good. We'd better delete it!"--Father Goose (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With Divine help (and also research), you may wish to improve this article. Incidentally, when I nominated it I didn't say it was "not very good", I said it was "junk". (Am I euphemism-challenged?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I'll avoid a choice euphemism right now. I don't need divine help to work on this article, but it would help if you agreed to stop wasting more of our time with this AfD. Repeat after me: AfD is not cleanup.--Father Goose (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, Father, it wasn't, and isn't, a matter of cleanup. The article was tripe the last time I looked. Even Pinkville, so vehement above that an article is needed, agreed with me on this (see the article's talk page). The article struck me as just as bad as its predecessor, whose nomination for deletion was such an outrage that, um, it was overwhelmingly supported, leading to deletion. ¶ So go ahead, peoples, rewrite the article already. Or at least make a start at doing so. Convince me. Before I hurl my copy of One Market Under God at the damn thing. -- Hoary (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does that book have to do with this article? What does it have to do with anything?--Father Goose (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For one thing, it has to do with the glorification by the US mass media of the market in general and a smallish number of brand names in particular. In the state where I found it, the article seemed fully compatible with this trend. (I now notice that Johnbod has already improved this aspect of it; see his comment below.) Moreover, chapter 8 ("New Consensus for Old") has much to say about Cultural Studies. -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, I just did my regular hedge-trim before noticing this addition to the many tags at the top. Obviously we should have an article on this subject, and obviously this one is crap (apart from the tentative lead para), and gets regularly crapper in between my visits with the power tools. But it would not take much to get the article to a more useful state. In my experience, the better an article is, the fewer unwelcome additions it collects. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Drums fingers on desk] So, wozzup? The article isn't as egregiously garbage-filled as it was when I nominated it, now that Johnbod has gone over it with his strimmer, but I still await anything worthwhile. For example, we read: John Wayne, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe and Britney Spears are examples of broadly national American cultural icons; does this mean that they represent almost the whole nation (to whom?) or that they represent the US to almost its whole, or something else? I guess that if I asked my acquaintances here (average age 20), most would have heard of perhaps two among Wayne, Presley and Monroe, and (so far as they did know their names) would think of them as hazy memories from the distant and receding past, rather as I think of Tom Mix, Bing Crosby and Jean Harlow. Britney Spears would merely be a reminder of their own now-embarrassing tastes of some years before. (To me, they represent different flavors of sleb wackiness. For a full range of flavors, just add Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise.) America would bring to mind Johnny Depp (I'm out of date with the popsters). Which one person would bring to mind America? Dubya, I fear. Now, this is mere guesswork, but at least I acknowledge that it's guesswork. Where are the attempts at definition in the article? Where's the cited research? Or will the improved article merely say that these people or those are "cultural icons" merely because Paglia or admirers of Mythologies have declared so? Considering the degree of support for a good article on this subject, I'm puzzled by the lack of enthusiasm so far for actually creating it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, er, my copy of Mythologies is in the loft, and the dog ate my Camille Paglia. Maybe give "One market under God" a shot" - give the teenies something to think about? Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm a little strapped for time at the moment (and I no longer own a copy of Mythologies, nor can I lay my hands on one right now), but by way of understanding how the term cultural icon may be/is used in a serious context, consider this abstract of the article Teaching controversial topics: iconography and the Confederate battle flag in the South by Jonathan I. Leib:

This article examines various strategies for teaching controversial topics. As a case study, I present examples from my experience teaching about the cultural/political geographic concept of iconography in southern classrooms using as an example recent debates over whether governments in the region should sanction the flying of the Confederate battle flag. First, I discuss the recent literature on the teaching of controversial issues. Second, I examine the concept of iconography and the debates over flying the flag. Third, I present different strategies that can be used to approach this controversial icon in a classroom setting. I conclude by arguing that there is no perfect solution to the teaching of controversial topics that will succeed for every topic, irrespective of time and place.

... or this abstract of the article The "end of race" and the future of early modern cultural studies by Francesca T. Royster:

Part of a section on race and Shakespeare studies. The writer discusses the depiction of Othello in Oliver Parker's 1995 movie version of Shakespeare's play. The audience is encouraged to enjoy Parker's (and Lawrence Fishburne's) physical Othello, to take pleasure in his body, in his rages, and even in his murder of the play's heroine. This is conveniently accomplished by reducing Othello' black identity to an appetizing and culturally acceptable icon: that of the athletic black male body. Most frequently, Othello is played as responding to characters around him with grunts, glares, or lapses into feverish sexual fantasy. Fishburne evokes in this way a cultural figuration of the American black male of the 1990s. It is paradoxical that by signaling Othello's ultimate unreadability through iconic representations, Parker engages with the history of the many ways that Othello has been read before. It is precisely his stimulation of cultural memory through the replication of past images of black masculinity that makes the film postmodern.

Sorry to take up so much space, but I hope these two quickly (lazily) found examples (via the Avery Index) show that cultural icon is a valid scholarly term, and that - something this article hasn't made clear - cultural icons are not the things/people themselves, but rather the images of them in popular culture. That is, in scholarly terms it isn't Marilyn Monroe herself that is the cultural icon, but the collection of ideas about her: beautiful, sexy, tragic, dumbish but inspired blonde, etc. that together form a persona called Marilyn Monroe. From the little I know about her, Monroe herself seems to have been a fairly smart, serious actress whose intellectual and artistic ambitions were continually thwarted by the implications of her public image - by her cultural icon/doppelgänger, if you will. But that's for another essay... Cultural icons have propagandistic aspects, but are seen as being non-political or at least politically neutral/all embracing. A further note, although I more or less randomly chose two articles on US icons, by no means is the term cultural icon reserved exclusively for US subjects. The image of the Taj Mahal presented in the article is quite apt, if undiscussed. Pinkville (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If icon refers to anything at all in the last couple of centuries, then surely yes it does refer to flags, designed and flown specifically in order to invoke an entity (usually a nation). I don't know what the relationship is between Leib's subject and, say, images of Monroe. ¶ Meanwhile, the stuff by Royster is your standard Private Eye "Pseud's Corner" fare. (Isn't there a website somewhere, a "postmodern generator", that churns out gibberish such as this? But whatever the hell Royster is banging on about, she doesn't once use the string "cultural icon". ¶ You, Pink, quickly prove yourself to be a vastly better writer than Royster, and I follow some of what you're saying, but I'm not clear about the differences, if any, among "persona", "public image", and "cultural icon". Dick Cheney, for example, would seem to have a clear public image (although I only have anecdotal evidence for this); would this mean that the Cheney of the [I think] popular imagination ("Go fuck yourself", hunting incidents, etc.), is a cultural icon (for the culture of interventionist Conservatism, or of the imperial presidency, or of crony capitalism, or whatever), or would he not a cultural icon because statecraft (or statecraftiness) is not "culture" and he hasn't cut any hit records? -- Hoary 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC) ... PS Ah, I misread the end of your comment. Since Cheney is politically, er, divisive, his persona can't be a cultural icon. Wayne was a man of the wacko right, but people seem to overlook this (as they don't do for Heston). I wonder about the chances of the pussycat Snoop Dogg. ¶ But enough of particular persons: The start of the splendid film Team America is a wonderful confection of what I suppose are cultural icons (if the term means anything) for the US (or the pre-freedom-fries-US) of France; complete (if I remember right) with a DS -- perhaps a tip of the hat to Mythologies? ¶ Time for me to go to bed and dream of Zazie dans le Métro. -- Hoary (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Royster isn't the writer of the abstract of her article... neverthelesss, the abstract has: culturally acceptable icon, which reduces to cultural icon fairly readily. As for your other, more substantial points, I'll come back to them in the morning. Pinkville (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Drums fingers on desk] And, since we last looked, this article, on a subject allegedly of major importance to our world and Wikipedia readers, has experienced a major revision! Yes, it's yet more bad news for Britney Spears: she's out, replaced by the good-looking and ever-lovable Oliver Hardy. And, er, that's it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic (though, as many have pointed out already, the article needs a lot of work). Klausness (talk) 11:32, 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. Wizardman 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burgerspace[edit]

Clone of a notable game with no apparent notability on its own. Powers ^T 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article fails to mention why this clone is notable. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added two reviews to the page, both from reliable third party sources. Llamabr (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but I'm not convinced those sources bestow notability. The Tucows review is one paragraph long -- rather perfunctory. The Debian source isn't a review at all, but rather a user-submitted item with no "review" content -- just facts on Burgertime and the controls for the clone. Powers ^T 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable clone with no in-depth sources presented or coming up in a google search, multiple in-depth articles from reliable sources are needed. There is no indication that it could ever be more than a game listing like the ones presented as sources. Someone another 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability for clones are generally reserved for clones from the "golden age" (70's/80's) and early 90's that have defined notability, i.e. they have a historical context, were almost as popular as the original, etc. Modern homebrew clones are a dime a dozen, and raise IP and trademark issues. Burgertime is a currently exercised tm and copyrighted game (in fact the current IP owners have been trying to make it very clear who they are on the current Data East article). This is exactly the kind of thing the "no modern homebrew remakes/clones" guideline was created for. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert any notability via reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources seem to be download sites and such. Fails WP:RS. Gary King (talk) 19:58, 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 —Alex.Muller 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (Natasha Bedingfield song)[edit]

This single is not confirmed, it is, once again based on rumours. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a crystal ball and all that. Powers ^T 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - WP:CRYSTAL indeed. Oh... and why should it be the single from "Natasha Bedingfield's second U.S. album" instead of from "Natasha Bedingfield's third European album"? She's from Britain after all! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogan - Locations Context[edit]

All the information in this article now exists in Bogan (disambiguation) Asher196 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles have titles that no one will search for (Bogan - Family Name Context). I reversed the page move of Bogan to the extremely unwieldy 'bogan' - Australian / New Zealand context. The editor who created the articles seems to have done so based on an objection that "Bogan" as a family name or place name was subordinated as a disambiguation page to the Australian pejorative term, and that the capitalisation of the article title implied it was a proper noun, hence the 'quote marks'. As it stands, the items covered on these new disambiguation pages are mostly redlinks, and as the nominator states, all material is covered by Bogan (disambiguation). --Canley (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete ... and when you try to wikify this editor's collection of redlinks by putting where it belongs, he reverts you. Obviously not worth saving. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment, in fact, Shadrack Bogan should be put up for AfD for non-notability. Wikipedia is not a genealogy blog. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So nominated. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason for this oddly-named page to exist when all of the information has been moved to the proper article. So Awesome (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bogan (disambiguation) and then speedy delete per WP:CSD#R3, an implausible misnomer. Or just save a step and delete now. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have You Lived Before This Life[edit]

Article covers a book that claims to have been out of print since 1989, although I did find a scientology bookstore that offered copies (but no publication information...I assume it is back in print). No secondary sources could be found outside of "Operation Clambake" which had the 4. Have You Lived Before This Life, and it was mentioned in a few blogs, but those only referanced it to say that "yes, scientology believes in reincarnation" which is already covered by many other wikipedia pages. It isn't even the primary source of the scientology doctrine of reincarnation, only a collection of stories about scientologists talking about past lives. not notable outsde the church or within the church (they stoped publishing it, and wern't in a hurry to bring it back). Coffeepusher (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched through several archival sources and databases in an attempt to find WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that significantly analyze and discuss this book. There are a few mentions of it in other books, but the majority of those are either other books affiliated with the Church of Scientology itself, or just passing mentions in no more than a sentence or so, and not a detailed analysis or in-depth discussion. Most simply give it a one-line mention. A search in book reviews in InfoTrac did yield one review, West Coast Review of Books Jan. 1979 p44, but I don't have access to that source. However, in a search of three different news archive sources, one yielded zero results, and the others resulted in three hits - all of which appeared to be a form of Scientology advertising as part of a public relations campaign - no independent discussion/analysis. So really I was only able to find the presence of the one book review, and there is the brief description in Paulette Cooper's The Scandal of Scientology. Not really enough to assert notability, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned up the references in the article, and while there could be more, there seems to be enough for a short article. The "brief description" in Paulette Cooper's The Scandal of Scientology is chapter four of her book. There are couple of bits in Bare-Faced Messiah that I'm surprised no one dug up. (Also in A Piece of Blue Sky, but that was the source that was expanded on for BFM so it's a bit redundant.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AndroidCat's efforts demonstrate adequate existence of reliable sources, which shouldn't be surprising, given the notability/notoriety of the book's author. --MPerel 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the article as I see it is the Notablility of the book itself. I appriciate Androidcat cleaning up the referances, but would you be able to adress if this book is notable or not?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The book meets the notability standard based on criteria 1 and also criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. It meets criteria 1 as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. For example, as AndroidCat mentions, an entire chapter in The Scandal of Scientology is devoted to it. It is also discussed in several journals (typically negatively) including in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion [54] (I’ve checked the full pdf text of the article), and in the Christian Research Institute Journal [55]. Additionally, it also meets criteria 5, as the work of an historically significant author, L. Ron Hubbard. --MPerel 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it fits either of those criteria. for criteria 1 it needs to be the "subject" of multiple... the journal article you mentioned (the second one that we can read) only used the book as supporting evidance, and only in 1 paragraph of the article. the first one I can't access, but it dosn't mention reincarnation or the book title anywhere in the abstract that I saw. My interpretation of this is the book dosn't qualify as the "subject" of the article, but rather minor supporting evidance. You do bring up 2 good sources...but again does 2 or 3=Multiple for notablility criteria (especialy considering the amout of reliable critical material avalible on scientology, if only 3 mention the book...). Now I have heard the argument for criteria 5 before, and I stand by my old stance. L Ron Hubbard is notable within the church, however his influence outside that circle is negligable at this time. His theories havn't been revolutionary to the population at large, and quite frankly don't really affect socitey outside of direct contact with scientologists. Unlike Marx, Darwin, Saint Augustine, Thomas Jefferson, his thoughts havn't spawned new theoretical works or systems of society outside of those he had direct influence over (the church of scientology). Therefore although he is definatly famous, he is hardly a household name (my parents didn't know who he was outside of a "bad science fiction writer" direct quote) and dosn't have the influence outside the church that would be neccisary to make everything he wrote important enought to grant inclusion to wikipedia regardless of its own notablility.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note that the subheading qualifies the number 5 criterea with the following example "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study"Coffeepusher (talk) 18:53, 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 keep. John254 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Income statement[edit]

Article unsourced since 2003 Foggy Morning (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the reason stated above does not meet any of the reasons for deletion - see WP:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion the policy. Only article that cannot possibly be sourced, or for which all attempts have failed, meet those criteria. This article is definitely a candidate for improvement, but not for deletion.--Gregalton (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source it or delete it, Gregalton. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A fairly well written article on an obviously worthy subject, whose chief defect was to have been begun when we were less careful about sourcing than we are now. -

How do you know if its accurate if it's unsourced?--Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I don't see any legitimate deletion rationale here. This is a notable and encyclopedic topic, and the article has many incoming links (as well as versions in 27 other languages). Klausness (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an important topic with incoming langauge links. But is it accurate and correct?--Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to review WP:DEL#REASON. Not having reliable sources is 'not a deletion reason. "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed" is the closest thing at WP:DEL#REASON, and that definitely doesn't apply to this article. Klausness (talk)

Wikify and Keep - I satisfies WP:N I'm sure that it can be sourced... I'm not even going to look as there will be millions of articles, news, blogs etc...etc...on this subject. It just needs to be inproved. --Pmedema (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it hasn't been improved for YEARS. And it might well contain some very inaccurate information. It's not clear. Why keep it? --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Klausness (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but sources would be nice. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Do a quick search and you'll find lots of sources. Should have been tagged appropriately, not nominated for deletion. I suggest nominator review deletion policy, specifically DEL and BEFORE. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a basic accounting topic - if it's deleted now, someone's simply going to have to create it again at some point. The current text needs a lot of work, but it does provide some useful basic information. It seems better to fix what we have, than to scrap it completely and start from scratch. EastTN (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand that makes this article so beyond redemption that it needs deleting. If the nominator feels the article needs sources, I'd encourage him to be bold and fix it. AnthonyUK (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important business topic, just needs cites not deletion. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR. This article is a mess and is an embarassment to wikipedia. But allow recreation if somebody wishes to source it. Yahel Guhan 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yahel Guhan. The information is a mess and is unsourced and an embarassment to Wikipedia. I agree WP:NOR applies here. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that an article is unverified just isn't a reason to delete it. If you don't like the article's current contents, reduce it to a stub or something--since this would be quickly recreated if it were deleted (and it won't be) that would give you the same outcome without this totally useless afd.P4k (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Strong Keep WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS are not satisfactory reasons for deletion. 95% of articles on Wikipedia would be deleted if that were the case. I encourage the nominator to understand and read Wiki's deletion policies, which revolve mainly around WP:NOTABILITY. Gizza^Discuss ^© 06:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that nom has also nominated Operating expense for deletion. That also seems to be an acceptable article that's just missing references. Klausness (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improve: I nominate this article. And every other one.--Gregalton (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is notable and should be kept, improved and correctly sourced. Lachambre (talk) 11:30, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Murtagh[edit]

Non notable winner of a beauty style pageant in Ireland. The competition is call The Rose of Tralee and is notable, the finals are shown on Irish television and regularly top the ratings. However, this women is not notable for anything other than winning this contest. If we allow articles for this, then every woman who wins Miss Ireland, Miss UK, Miss Bulgaria, Miss Uruguay, etc. needs an article and for every year of the competition too. I propose this article be deleted or redirected to the Rose of Tralee. Snappy56 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have stub articles on squillions of one-minute-wonder footballers, but the Rose of Tralee (not a beauty pageant BTW) is selected to perform a public role for the next year. Murtagh is clearly notable, with lots of substantial coverage (e.g. [56], [57]). Unlike footballers, there's only one Rose of Tralee a year, so if deluge-stopping you're onto, it's a worthy task but this is the wrong place to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If she is notabale for winning the Rose of Tralee, is that enough? Some of the winners go onto to be famous in other areas, most disappear back into the obscurity from whence they came. Unless Murtagh becomes notable for something else, this article will always remains a stub, and will say little more than info already contained in the table in the Rose of Tralee article, e.g. Name, Year and Area represented. Also, looking at the other Roses that have articles, they soon degenerate into Hello magazine fluff pieces, "Lisa like cats and clothes shopping".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough to me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BLP and has reliable sources. Added content and citation as well. --Pmedema (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So she has "beautiful hair", how does this help your argument? ;-) Snappy56 (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just seems like WP:BLP1E to me; her only notability stems from the Rose of Tralee. No prejudice to recreation if she achieves notability later, but it isn't here yet. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until she does something else notable.Red Hurley (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is something notable than winning an award to be the centerpiece of a public relations event. DGG (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough for me --Bardcom (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E. Precedent is interesting though. There are several other articles on Roses, all of reach read like NN bios plucked from competition press packs. Only Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin has any notability beyond the event. Unless you count some subjects participation in the (...ahem...) "Celebrity" Charity You're A Star. Guliolopez (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe they should all be merged into The Rose of Tralee? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 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. John254 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operating expense[edit]

Article unsourced since origination in 2004. Foggy Morning (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with Income statement, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable accounting topic (with plenty of incoming links and versions in other languages). Sure, it could use some references, but that's not a reason for deletion (see WP:DEL). Klausness (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Klausness (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important business topic. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest delete per WP:NOR. Unverified article contents. --Foggy Morning (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this original research? The only problem I see here is missing references. "Unverified article contents" is not a deletion reason. WP:V says that article contents must be verifiable, not that they must be verified. Unverified but verifiable article contents are a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Klausness (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar situation to Income statement. The may have original research or be missing sources but that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Deletion only depends on notability/verfiability, not to be confused with as Klausness points out, with verified. Gizza^Discuss ^© 07:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per comments by others: does not meet criteria for deletion. Perhaps the nominator wishes to start a new process, articles for improvement, and set up a bot to flag all articles.--Gregalton (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles about business subjects — at least, articles that aren't about dodgy neologisms and are written in concrete, intelligible English — strike me as somewhat scarce, and deserving of every encouragement. They aren't really exciting, so it's unsurprising that it's gotten few edits since 2004. Sourcing requirements were nowhere near as specific then as they are today. No reason to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no doubting the notability of the article, and it is capable of being referenced. All it needs is for someone to take the time and add citations. AnthonyUK (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Black (wrestler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PJ Black (wrestler) (2nd nomination)

Non-notable wrestler from a non-notable organization. This pages has pretty much no information. iMatthew 20 08 17:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any independent sources. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the assumption that the organization is not notable. The World Wrestling Professionals appears to be a popular wrestling organization in South Africa that airs on SABC 2. I would do some research, first, before making bold statements that the wrestler and organization are automatically not notable. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a viable excuse. SashaNein (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the previous AfD for World Wrestling Professionals. iMatthew 20 08 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a nominated AfD that was closed as keep. This does not help your generalization that the organization is not notable. SashaNein (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was only kept because it the nominator added every title, superstar, venue, and associated buiseness to the AfD. There were too many articles in the AfD and it needed to be broken down, which is what I am doing. iMatthew 20 08 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Whether or not the promotion is notable, this individual wrestler is not. There are no third party references to expand the article, verify the information, or to help prove notability. Sorry. Delete. Nikki311 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and although previous AfD closed as keep it was with no prejudice to latter AfDs. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, per WP:N. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 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, as unverifiable. Davewild (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred christian church[edit]

deleteI cannot find any reference to this church existing other then this page. Also the Username of the writer is the same as the article name. Pewwer42 Talk 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Christian denomination, also in violation of WP:COI. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given rationale above. Vishnava (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google ain't never heard of 'em, and brings forth Wikipedia and irrelevant assemblies of the words of the title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --GHcool (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, group apparently either does not exist or is so ephemeral as to not merit an article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, nothing here to hang onto. JGHowes ^talk - 01:56, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Shakira album)[edit]

An unconfirmed release date, no tracklisting and no sources. For the time being, it doesn't qualify for its own article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources, a release date, tracklisting or a title. Pure speculation Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shakira, since many articles (and the template) link to this one. WP:CRYSTAL - Too far into the future to have good refs and confirmed info; the release date isn't even known at this point. --JamieS93 15:01, 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 —Alex.Muller 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lizard (wrestler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Lizard (wrestler) (2nd nomination)

Non-notable wrestler, with barely any information on his page. It was two references. iMatthew 20 08 18:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any independent sources. Only ones are from the wrestling company that he works for. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third party source available to verify, expand, or help prove notability. Nikki311 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nici and Nikki. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and other AfDs. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Cbrown1023 talk 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Massey[edit]

Bio of a young filmmaker of little notability in terms of his career or significant, independent coverage, not yet even included in IMDB. Does not appear to pass inclusion guidelines for creative professionals. FF 13:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is an article about an unreleased film directed by Luke Massey (and created by the same editor), lacking significant independent coverage of its production, and so does not satisfy notability guidelines for movies:

Delete in current state. But is this the same guy? Vishnava (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's Luke Massy, an actor/stunt performer. MSN has managed to mispell his name in this instance. --FF 14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the page for Luke Massey, he does have a significant body of work but recently changed his professional name from Luke Morrison. His IMDB page is here: [58]. Perhaps that should be made clearer. As for the Within the Woods page, I think it needs editing rather than deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.155.166 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —FF 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I see no evidence of notability. In a google search, the closest I could find to a reliable source discussed an affirmative action activist with the same name. Otherwise, I just found directory listings, blogs, etc. Searches for “Luke Morrison” and for the film found an equal lack of sources.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cal South Soccer League[edit]

Non-notable soccer (or football in Europe) league. Written like an advertisement, no sources whatsoever. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AR TYOM 13:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ this link gives some information regarding the league's statewide proliferation. The article should be renamed California Youth Soccer Association. Vishnava (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that the present condition is terrible. Vishnava (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Number 57. Didn't know about WP:CSD#G11 Vishnava (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. A new article at the title suggested above can be started from scratch. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable soruces to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and if possible rewrite as a non-ad, per above. Something this large ought to be notable, but I have a hard time finding secondary sources. And by the way, CSSL doesn't stand for "Cal South Soccer League", but for "Cal South Signature League". -- Jao (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What can be done in a rewrite. As you've pointed out yourself, there are no sources for something that should have some given the size. I can't even determine what their website is from a google search. It might be this or it might be this but none of the names actually match the name of the article. I don't see how we can possibly meet verifiability without any sense that even the name of the organisation is correct. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo, little apparent notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. Cbrown1023 talk 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Talbert W. Swan, II[edit]

Recreation of a page AfDed in February (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talbert W. Swan, II for the previous discussion). As with the previous article, User:Revtswan2 is the creator, once again raising the WP:AUTO and WP:COI issues that existed the first time out. This non-notable local activist still fails WP:BIO and still lacks reliable sources about him as required. I'm not suggesting a Speedy, because I don't know for a certain fact the articles are identical, but at this point, I strongly urge a Delete and Salt. RGTraynor 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated in nom. Vishnava (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Salting may be a little extreme, but I would certainly speedy anything in the future created under this name by this user. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + salt as a recreated autobio. The creator seems to be an SPA doing self promotion; I'd suggest a warning to the author, and if they do any more, possibly a block. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of a previously deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as per Nom. Edward321 (talk) 02:34, 23 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 as the nominator has withdrawn and there are no extant delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Service Foundation[edit]

Non-notable charity organization, only on a local level. Fails WP:CORP. Only sources or links are to the organization's website, and a local newspaper entry. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a local group, but the references, while slim, are probably adequate. Local newspapers are reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I looked at the sources and see some notability. If all of the information was added, the article would be quite interesting. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 12:15, 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 keep. John254 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Burke Group[edit]

An article assembled from tidbits of news coverage, almost all of which is dominated by opposition to the company's union busting activities. OTRS ticket 2008041410037191 applies. The main editor tried to improve the sourcing, but acknowledges that it is "is a hard company to get information on, precisely because they want to be secretive". Absolutely correct. But WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV means we need to be sure that if a company is hard to get information on, we are not blazing the trail in correcting that, especially when we only have polemical sources on which to draw. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence confirms that this is the world's largest union avoidance/busting firm. That is verified by its own website - and all those newspaper articles. Newspaper articles are not tidbits, but reliable sources. There are no newspaper articles that cover its non-union busting activities because it is a union busting firm. I expect anybody who reads this page will not go away thinking anything they have read is 'unreliable' or 'unverifiable' - if they would, where and which sentences? The sources are not polemical. The article is one hundred percent neutral, because all significant views are represented, per WP:NPOV. In terms of media coverage, EVERY significant view that can be found - and I challenge anybody to find anything further - is on that page.

In short this is a significant page, on an important firm, that is well documented, and it should stay. It is a misplaced proposal for deletion. Even if it were non-neutral, that would mean a neutrality tag should be placed on the page, and the specific complaint, the specific sentence described on the talk page. Deletion is completely uncalled for.

It should also be recognised that this is precisely the kind of firm which does not want coverage about its conduct, and exactly the kind of company which wants to be secretive. The idea that the article should be deleted runs contrary to everything that Wikipedia stands for, and I would suggest that anybody who thinks otherwise should wonder why they are here.

Once again, the page is reliable, verifiable and neutral. Even if it were not, that would mean it should be changed. But nobody has said what should be changed and where. There is no case for deletion. Wik idea 14:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Guy, on your page when I say it's hard to get information on this company - I mean in the positive sense, in the magazines like Forbes or Business Week which you suggested. You know you're taking my words out of context. There's loads of info about this firm, and most of it's cited in the article. Wik idea 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an obvious dearth of neutral analytical independent impartial sources. Which does not mean, I think, that we should use polemical ones instead. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your conclusion it seems is to pretend the company doesn't exist! I think that the BBC, the Independent, the FT and the Guardian (except for one comment is free reference) have written entirely neutral, analytical, independent and impartial sources. You've failed to say why they are not. And besides, you've got the policy on deletion entirely wrong I'm afraid. It's a neutrality tag you're after. And I think you're wrong on that too. What you really need to do is chip in and improve the article rather than relying on admin status to threaten deletion. Wik idea 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is adequately referenced. --Eastmain (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article suffers a bit from inadequately broad sourcing, but that is easily rectified. There's no question they have been substantively covered by reliable and independent sources and are touted as one of the largest union-busters out there (in the US, if not the world). They are thus unquestionably worthy of coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately cited and notable. It may be hard to get information on the company itself, but its activities are pretty well covered by sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impeccably sourced. Their web page is sufficient for the general orientation in their own words. I'd add a quote for their claimed successes. [59] We have enough problems with BLP for notable individuals who do not like it that people know about their relevant biography and public activities. One article is currently is being opposed on the basis of not hurting the feelings of the family. Extending this to a firm of consultants is ridiculous. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that says what the subjects want to hear. DGG (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is biased and inappropriate and should be deleted. It is a private business in the management service industry.....not an organization.....not a membership....not a political affiliation....not a government agency and not a marauding army of consultants devouring unions. There are hundreds of management service industries like this one who are employed at the behest of clients. This appears to be a piece about union busting written by a pro union advocate rather than an analysis of this form of service industry. This posting appears to take exception at the success of The Burke Group’s management of election campaigns. Would you write with same vitriol about the success of union organizing campaigns? There are employees who do not want to join a union and there are those who do. Why is it wrong for the former to have a voice? IF employees vote no....isn’t that their right? Why is termed “misconduct” on the part of The Burke Group if they are successful? Some want a union and some want to remain union free but this posting demonizes the latter. IF a union employed persuasive tactics to get employees to vote YES and wins......would this author write about that as equally as misconduct? There is nothing in this posting that explains the union free position so how can this posting be deemed a Neutral Point of View? The Pro and Cons of both sides of the issue are not discussed so I say again this is biased and totally non neutral. This company is employed as a service by a company generally AFTER being targeted by union organizers and not the other way around. How is it termed a “union buster” before there is an elected union? Isn’t that why these companies call their service “preventive” labor relations? It appears they assist management and its employees with information about their rights and obligations during union organizing. What’s the problem? According to its website, The Burke Group provides a myriad of services to both union AND non-union clients. Yet this article focuses only on “union busting”. You intimate TBG provides no other service because of a lack of evidence in news articles of the contrary. When is it newsworthy to cover a management audit, or supervisory training, or compensation analysis (other services listed in the TBG website)? BORING! When was the last time anyone read a news story about a routine accounting audit at the London School of Economics? Get real! There are things that are newsworthy and things that are not! A union, when organizing has a right to disseminate information to employees about an employer. It is often negative in nature in order to convince voters that the union is the only option. An employer has the right to disseminate information about a union as well! But they are strictly prohibited from the certain activity under the ERA, CAC and NLRA and need professional consultants and solicitors to guide them thru the mine field. This article discusses only union options but none of the rights of an employer. The citations and notes, once examined, are largely papers written by Dr. John Logan and/or publications that have extracted passages from them. It gives the appearance of lots of sources but they are actually many of the same sources cobbled together. I vote to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note another one of these mysterious unregistered users taking exception to this article. I would note that Dr Logan's report came out in 2008, and most of the news stories are from before that. Also, most of the in-line citation sources in the article are from TBG Labor's own website. This user is probably one of those people in America that are always decrying the "liberal media" bias. It's a bit sad, really. Wik idea 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by another mysterious unregistered user? I am logged in and registered. I am quite new to this. Do you want my address and telephone number? Are my comments less valid because you want be outed? ?Why don't you address my questions about neutrality rather than attack me as some "American decrying liberal media". Surprise.....I'm not American!! Where was there any mention of liberal media? I pose valid and neutral objective questions hungry for intellectual dialogue. Stay on point and address the issue at hand. The issue is bias and neutrality. John Logan....is this you? Are your students the ones who are writing in support of your post? Talk about breaking the rules!!! Are they also mysterious unregistered users.....why don't you all come out in the open and get honest about your post. Unions would be insulted by your fear and loathing of The Burke Group as though they are so weak and scared. They are not. Unions are strong. They have membership far greater than The Burke Group has employees yet you write as though they are left in the wake of The Burke Group. This is actually funny. The Burke Group has ...what.....25 employees? Most trade unions have hundreds of organizers in numbers far greater than union busters have employees and thousands if not millions of members. Relax.....why are you so threatened? Unions continue to win over 50% of their organizing drives. Regardless of your socio political bent......this is supposed to be a neutral unbiased forum. Not an attack dog or a vehicle to defame based on weak data and misplaced emotion. Get objective and print fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, before Guy prematurely deleted the page before, there were two other mysterious users who blanked the page, one called Mymomishot and another with some letter/number jumble.

Yes, I wouldn't mind your address and telephone number. Please, do put it up! No, I'm not Dr Logan, and I could not pretend to be nearly so well informed or have so much academic integrity.

But once again, I think your comments are a little sad, and I think they would fit right in with people decrying the liberal media in America, and I could not actually care less. That said you obviously have something to contribute. Can you cite a page which says there are 25 employees? That is a useful fact Everything else you have written, however, is a rant. Including that stuff on the page. I'm glad this new exciting topic has brought you to Wikipedia for the first time; but I think this goes to show for everyone, that this is not a deletion issue in the slightest, and if anything there will be a neutrality dispute. Therefore,

Keep and stop wasting time with a deletion debate Wik idea 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To John......I have added some edits to your post that are neutral and unbiased as well as researched and offering differing points of view and should be judged by the Wikipedia "delete staff" accordingly. Remember you started this post and it is about a private enterprise in the conduct of business for its clients which is comparable to the work performed by organizers for their clients.....the unions. Both are hired for specific reasons and both should be accorded equal time, respect, and consideration. Both have equal rights under the law. Where did you find it upon yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the difference between fact and opinion, the user may find some schooling in misrepresentation law helpful. Though that will not do much for the writing method. Wik idea 10:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with many of the changes made by the prior contributor in an effor to make the article "neutral." The original artical was more of a one sided attack, rather than a neutral discription of the business. This was most evident under the "Operations" heading. I see that the prior contributor noted several good questions and I would like to add that the fines levied against the Chinese Daily News went back to 2000, prior to their employment of The Burke Group. However, this piece is written in such a way as to infer that the litigation was a direct result of The Burke Group's involvement. Ilikewiki11 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Ilikewiki11striking SPA's statement[reply]

Another mysterious unregistered user, who doesn't want to show an IP address. Boy these anti-organising people are organised! Wik idea 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete: I still don't know what you mean by unregistered user. I am new to this. I have no idea who the others are but welcome their input. But back to the original posting.....it is written in Wikipedia rules that postings are to be neutral and unbiased? If this post is intended as a slam on a private company because you differ with them, it is an improper posting. If it is an attempt at an unbiased analysis of a consulting company then it is proper. Please don't resort to name calling. It is unproductive. The additions of content are written with citations and research. What is your intent on this posting? If you oppose union free environments you should write a posting called "union free" or add to the "union busting" section in development. You've cited things under "operations" that are uncorroborated. I am curious why you post the amounts of money allegedly earned by TBG but don't post what is earned by the unions? You say TBG lost one case. OK, so the union won....correct? What did they spend to win? IF the company spent money to remain union free then the union spent money equally to organize them and win.....correct? Either way the employees have the result they want based on their vote. Why don't you post what cost is now to employees now paying union dues upon losing their bid to remain union free? You see.....all I'm trying to illustrate is there are two sides that need to be presented in order for this posting to live and be deemed a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.85.165 (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2008 striking SPA's statement

To Wikipedia editors: I just closed my comments above and went to the posting and noted that all the edits I added last night, "neutral" points of fact with citations, outside links and articles were all removed in their entirety and the posting has been put back into its original content. I did not delete the original...merely "added" to it and removed comments posted as fact that were opinion. As participants to this conversation, are we not allowed to make edits? Is this posting "owned"? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia postings was to invite other points of view and "add" to the conversation. I noticed there is now an "organized labor" portal attached to the original page? Does that not make it pretty clear that this is NOT neutral and is, in fact, VERY biased? Why does this user insist on posting the name and address of the CEO of The Burke Group. Is that not a security breach for that person? If this is the way Wikipedia operates, it is very very wrong. I am going to remove the name and address once again. If this posting cannot be edited, it is a mere defamatory slam piece put up by union organisers and presents a legal concern? I'm very disturbed by this. The person controlling this posting needs disciplinary action and should be blocked. This posting needs to be removed OR the edits that were saved last night allowed back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 22 April 2008

Strong keep. Company is obviously notable, and there is encyclopedic content in the article. A union-busting firm is in a tough, politically charged line of business. It's somewhat odd, to the point of incredulity, that a business in that line of work could be so thin skinned as to be offended that negative but true information about them comes out, when it's all over the press. We don't owe it to a business to ignore the controversial side of what they do. Avoiding POV does not mean ignoring controversies. They are in the business of helping management stop unionization drives. That's a very significant issue, and an understanding of the labor movement, labor practices, etc., in the US and the world is to cover these companies. They do it, it's notable, we should cover it. It's that simple. If there is a problem with citations, POV, accuracy, etc., then we improve articles rather than delete them. Deleting articles because a company doesn't like how it's covered would set a very bad precedent. Incidentally, there are some things in there that look like violations of BLP, WP:V, and POV, and ought to go for sure. Not to mention stylistic issues. Wikidemo (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the writer of Strong Keep......have you been reading the protestations? The company is not thin skinned. It's not about negative truth, its about lies. Yes, I agree the work is notable and should be covered, but not by biased contributors who have no interest in truth. I also agree that the spirit of Wikipedia is to IMPROVE articles rather than delete however ALL the improvements have been deleted! We aren't editing because we don't like it, we are editing because it is untrue. If there is no interest in truth, improvements or edits then it should be deleted. If you are going to print stories about David Burke then print that he is a decorated DISABLED combat veteran of the 1st Infantry Division (Vietnam) and earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart after 2 years of service and 6 months of hospitalization. Hardly thin skinned!! He is also a former member of the United Furniture Workers of America and Shop Steward with Retail Clerks now United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). If you are going to profile The Burke Group then print what preceded founding The Burke Group. Living in government projects in abject poverty supporting his immigrant grandmother he was called out on a 13 week strike for higher wages with no strike benefits. Upon return there was no increase but the union bosses never missed a check. His grandmother died and he has no money for a head stone. That soured him on unions because he learned there was no benefit to being a member except to the union bosses who took his dues. There are 1,000's of stories like that and that is why unions are losing membership. You demonize David Burke but worship Martin Levitt who is a 3 time ex con with felony convictions such as arson, insurance fraud, theft, and battery (public record San Francisco and Cleveland). No consulting firms would hire him so he wrote a book (which you cite) demonizing them. Is there something wrong with this picture? You say he impedes an employees right to form a union......not true. What about an employees right NOT to join a union? Either allow edits or delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETEWhat's really going on here? This is clearly a biased, poorly disguised attempt by "union organizers" to use Wikipedia as a tool to advertise for labor. If you're going to profile this group, it should be fair. Don't just show the one-sided view. How could this company have been in business so long and have so many clients all over the world if they are nothing but bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laborfriend (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC) whose only edit so far is this one striking SPA's statement[reply]

STRONG DELETE I was in a union and HATE them and applaud that this company protects and assists us against the thugs that come into our workplace to disrupt and wreak havoc just to take our money. Who are you kidding? I'd like to know more about this company. If I was trying to understand the differences between Democrats and Republicans would I go only to the DNC and allow no input from the RNC? I don't think so. That little box on the main page called "labor portal"? That's a dead giveaway your nothing but a bunch of paid organizers. This site does not meet with the neutrality requirements. That's one point. But it also does not allow edits. That's bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.223.137 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) striking SPA's statement[reply]

Keep. Seems a notable company. And if new users and anons are so keen to see it deleted, then clearly it must be kept! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE This entire dialogue questions the integrity of Wikipedia itself. Clearly, the initial entry of this article is biased and, therefore, should be considered for immediate deletion. Terms such as "union busting" are non-neutral in nature and will only veil a negative connotation upon the described party. Note: No where within the associated company’s website do “they” classify themselves as such. This term is only used by opposition with a biased position. From my general understanding, the involved company is a privately held enterprise. Hence, we should not expect them to divulge their business structure, financial stability, and/or staffing levels. The company has rights and I personally feel much of this proposed propaganda is opening the door to slanderous activity. As defined by their principals, it is Wikipedia’s duty to maintain unbiased and neutral definition of all stated entries. IF such language is acceptable, then we can look forward to seeing such definitions as; Mr. John Logan: a contributor to Wikipedia who is a known supporter of crime, corruption, embezzlement, and violence associated with organised labour unions. Mr Logan has a “proven” track record of authoring fictional editorials based on hearsay and personal opinion in lieu of factual evidence. Mr. Logan believes in the hindering of employee rights, allowing organised labour to plague of the ignorance of the uninformed for financial gain. All said, the end disposition to this dilemma is up to Wikipedia’s administration. What direction do you wish to pursue? How much weight do you wish to put upon your institution’s integrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionfree (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) — Unionfree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking SPA's statement[reply]

DELETE: Your opinions should be posted under the category "Union Buster" which pre-existed this site. If you are going to "target" one specific consulting firm, and allow no additional opinions or countering opinion the it is USELESS to a reader researching or trying to understand the dialogue of the pro's and con's. This site is pointless and embarrassing to the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdelosrios (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC) — Mdelosrios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Cripes, these meat puppets are talking like their jobs depend on it! :) Wik idea 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they're made of meat- they seem similar enough to me to be socks. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA/Sock/Meat Mdelosrios, Unionfree, Laborfriend, Oppo212 , Ilikewiki11 all seem to have been created only to edit the article and this afd. Would be interesting to see the originating IP's for those users and see if they fall in the range of 64.80.10.112-119? Protonk (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll soon find out. Suspected sock puppet report filed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an important article, on an important subject that affects the careers and work lives of many thousands of individuals. Richard Myers (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a WP:DEL#REASON to delete. I don't understand the assertion that only polemic sources exist: of the thirteen citations, seven are to the company's web site, the BBC, and The Independent. It's clearly notable on the web and in the news. I think the best thing both parties could do is WP:CITE every statement that's made, using more WP:RELIABLE sources and perhaps request WP:ARBITRATION. Haus^Talk 13:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and keep Needs a lot of work, but is not unsalvageable. Jtrainor (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an international company and certainly notable, covered by such reliable sources as the BBC so we have a kernel of verifiability for the article to sprout. The obvious POV-pushing should be addressed by editing, not article deletion. JGHowes ^talk - 02:17, 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, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Davewild (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kapu Surnames[edit]

This article consists of nothing but an unlinked list of surnames. This article is not encyclopedic; it’s just an ~~indiscriminant~~ indiscriminate collection of information. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO.

I {{Prod}}’ed this article two weeks ago, but removed the tag after someone promised on the talk page to improved the article, and add more encyclopedic content. I was skeptical, but tried to give the benefit of the doubt. Since then, nothing has been done except the addition of more names. I’ve left a couple of messages on the talk page, but nothing gets done, so I think it’s time for AfD. barneca (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Barneca makes a persuasive case (although 'indiscriminant' is unknown to the Urban dictionary). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. Thanks. Fixed. --barneca (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just a big list of names. I could make up 100 names out of thin air and stick them on there and no one would be the wiser. Seems pointless. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:08, 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 keep. John254 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darkest of Days[edit]

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines. It amounts to an announcement that this game will soon be released by 8monkey Labs. That article, in turn, amounts to an announcement that 8monkey Labs will soon release Darkest of Days. Neither of them has any real content. 007bistromath (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is very underdeveloped but the game itself is notable enough for inclusion. The IGN preview works as a reliable source, and the information therein can be used to expand this article. So Awesome (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable.[60]. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IGN preview below offers verification it exists, and it can be expanded from there. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS and WP:N with flying colors Gary King (talk) 20:04, 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 Delete both, consensus is that the articles fail the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kharma 45[edit]

Where's Your Spirit Man? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Related article added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Band have apparently split up without releasing an album Alastairward (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both There seem to be a couple sources present, but as it stands, I see nothing that passes WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. SWik78 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable for now. Maybe in a couple of months. Vishnava (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden school[edit]

I have never heard this term before, neither in English nor in German ("Dresdner Schule"), at least not as a style of architecture. There might be something like Dresden baroque style but "Dresden school" is new to me. Looks like a hoax to me. Can anyone log in at the page that's supposed to be the source for the article? (by User:X-Weinzar)

Keep. See this, and a lexicon search on http://www.dresden-lexikon.de/ also mentions it. It might indeed be obscure, but it's not a hoax. WilliamH (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For example, ISBN 1859734413 (Dresden: A City Reborn) writes, Semper and Nicolai set the architectural pace and, indeed, created a robust northern Renaissance style that became known as the Dresden School. It can be seen in the surviving public buildings .... --Dhartung | Talk 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard term. The online source, Grove, is also available in print in most libraries.DGG (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Lift Truck Services, Inc[edit]

Nonnotable company, sources don't really indicate notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable business. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Student Association[edit]

Non-notable local student government. No reliable sources and no assertion of notability SevernSevern (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep— Just barely skims over the bar of WP:N. It appears they've enacted some relevant changes to Indiana University. However, in its current state, it should be marked as a stub. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ORG. The article's only two external links are to (a) an article in the Indiana University alumni magazine which never mentions the IUSA by name and (b) the IUSA's own web site. There may be a potential conflict of interest involved with this article but I'm not certain: approximately one-third of the article is devoted to a single resolution passed by the IUSA in 1996. The name of the student who introduced the resolution matches that of the creator of the article -- although the student's name was added to the article by an anonymous editor. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS coverage of the union and its actions spread to Minnesota and Pennsylvania, I think it passes notability via the sourcing required for local orgs TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —SevernSevern (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as somewhat notable coverage as Travellingcari mentioned. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SevernSevern (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG, similar to several AfDs closed as delete the past few days. I would have recommended a merge with Indiana University, but there is insufficient room there. B.Wind (talk) 02:53, 21 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see potential for this page to grow into something more substantial than it is now. --GHcool (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per comments above. The reliable sources linked to above are not that significant in coverage, but the article has potential.—Noetic Sage 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIf it's the main student organisation its notable and can serve as the place for merging other non-individually notable groups. DGG (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, as the originator of the article I believe it should be kept. There's a lot more to the work of IUSA over the years than the few things listed. All students are governed by its Code of Conduct and judicial system, for instance. I've invited the current student body president to comment on the importance of IUSA over the years, and hope the SBP and others will contribute to providing more information in the article itself. You're right, it is painfully short at the moment and does not do IUSA justice. Please don't delete the article just because it is underdeveloped. A great deal more could be added on the Vietnam era, based on the IU magazine article's tidbits. Anyone who does a little Herald Times newspaper research during those years will find loads of interesting things that IUSA did during that time. The activism at that time at IU even generated at least one U.S. Supreme Court case on First Amendment matters. The article is a clear keeper, and its brevity should prompt others to dig deeper, not delete the whole thing. Thank you.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Info: It has also come to my attention that there was a very close IUSA election recently, with the winner coming out ahead by just 120 votes out of 8000 cast. The losers are allegedly making a number of hostile claims, and this attempt to delete the IUSA entry on Wikipedia may be part of a sour grapes campaign. The person who marked it for deletion only joined Wikipedia this month, so the whole matter becomes very suspicious.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Refutation - No, I'm not from IUSA or Indiana. Since you so cleverly checked my edit history, you can check to see that I nominated several student governments for AFDs. Noting personal or sour grapes about it. User:SevernSevern aka Flunkerton (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepAlthough I am not heavily involved in the University Wikiproject, I thought I would throw in my two cents so to speak. Having served on a Big Ten Conference student government, I do care about these institutions. I think student activism has played a roll in shaping university, local, state, and even federal policy. In this context, IUSA may be noteable. My suggestion is to give the original editor sometime to prove its noteability. Is it possible to revisit the deletion issue after a few months?H.al-shawaf (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if kept, the article can be re-nominated for deletion at any time TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete consensus is that the term is not notable. Davewild (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourced product development[edit]

Seems a non-notable (at least does not assert) neologism, non-encyclopedic tone, unrefd, OR, spam etc. SGGH ^speak! 11:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't say anything significant that isn't covered by outsourcing. Reads like a pamphlet, states the obvious and is full of verbose business babble. Cambrasaconfab 11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP Ketsuekigata (talk) 06:30, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New, Fresh, but Safe Day[edit]

The article in question relates to an organization (No Use For Nickels) which has twice been deleted due to non-notability. It is not encyclopedic material. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article's organizationhad been previously deleted twice, and is a non notable charity event. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 10:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnoteworthy event. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mike Vitale 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Markovich292 05:53, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necromium[edit]

Article was originally nominated for deletion in WP:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD). Since that large group AfD took place, it has not been possible to establish verifiability or notability for the subject. My own searches haven't brought any third-party reliable sources to light, hence the nomination. Gazimoff (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable role-playing game that does not cite sources. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11 : 10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - found this, but I'm unsure to whether the source it's from is reliable. Only 4,000 Google hits, which doesn't bode well for its actual notability though. I'm on the fence, but I don't think that lone review is substantive enough for the article to be kept. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, therefore failing WP:N. It also pretty much fails WP:RS. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem sufficiently notable. Markovich292 05:56, 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 speedied - nonsense. Fl owerparty^☀ 10:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mera land there phuda par[edit]

Seems to be nonsense, no google results and it is the kind of thing that would have google results. SGGH ^speak! 09:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vandalism, possibly by a mentally ill person. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is just nonsense and gibberish, CSD G1 STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 10:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agim Murtezi[edit]

A guy mistakenly accused of being a war criminal [61]. The article at present seems to misrepresent the facts (no surprises that it cites no sources) - that BBC article ([62]) says that it was a case of mistaken identity. -- Naerii 09:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I began to correct the article, but even the BBC article is wrong. The indictment was fully withdrawn.[63] There were further legal proceedings viz. but this should be covered elsewhere. It does seem notable that they arrested the wrong man; I'm not sure where specifically that deserves mention, but possibly in an article about the former Yugoslavia war crimes trials generally. --Dhartung | Talk 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dhartung basiclly says it all. The article does not represent the facts stated in the BBC report. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11 : 12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO1E...and mistakenly tied to the event in the first place. Markovich292 06:02, 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 Merge to List of Antarctic territorial claims per consensus below. Nick (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic territorial claims[edit]

Article used to give an overview of Antarctic claims, which are now in List of Antarctic territories, and discusses the Antarctic Treaty System, which has its own article. Those two are enough to cover the topic, and having this article in between will create confusion. Classical geographer (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does seem to be little need for this, but I'm concerned about some loss of discussion of the de facto legal situation with regard to suspended claims. --Dhartung | Talk 09:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Antarctic territories. If the information here was merged with the list there, we may be looking at FLC. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of Antarctic territories to this one. In essence I believe this title is better...Inge (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and List of Antarctic territories to List of Antarctic territorial claims, as being a yet better title. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Quasirandom suggests. I am leery of the distinction between "territories" and "territorial claims". De jure, none of these claims extends beyond national jurisdiction unless there is a bilateral treaty. --Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--Berig (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for the title List of Antarctic territories, which I agree might be interpreted as an endorsement of claims as territories, please take note of the preceding discussions on the talk page of that article and on my own talk page. Classical geographer (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (but cleanup/rewrite). Cbrown1023 talk 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wack Pack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has been inadequately sourced for several months. It concerns living individuals, and some of the content is highly negative. Since nobody seems to be interested in properly sourcing it and thereby resolving potential WP:BLP issues, it should be deleted. These issues were not properly discussed in the recent AfD. In terms of living individuals, the rule is: source it or lose it. This is not a case for indefinitely keeping crap content, because living individuals get better treatment than that. Yes, I know the show is popular, that does not give you a bye on sourcing. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination withdrawal statement last time was "Withdrawn with the assumption that references like the above will be added to this article" This has not happened. This also may be a BLP issue. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article irritates me to no end (which isn't a reason for deletion, but it should be!). I have some comments that probably relate to content more than a deletion debate--This article in its current state seems to have arisen from the practice of deleting articles on individual Wack Packers, redirecting them to Wack Pack, and placing a blurb about the person. It sort of reminds me of the "in popular culture" articles. When I see the "in popular culture" articles deleted, they usually end up, eventually, being pushed into some other article where they shouldn't be. For that reason, I do not mind the "in pop culture" articles. This article is different because it involves BLPs, it is not your normal fancruft stuff. If someone can source the sections on living people in this article then I would !vote keep, even if only a few are sourced. As it is, I think all non-sourced information dealing with a living person should be removed; what will remain is a short blurb describing what a Wack Packer is and sourced entries on living people that reliable sources consider wack packers (good luck on that!). In summary, I think we should remove all unsourced BLP stuff and revert every BLP edit that is added without a source. That said, I certainly would not miss this article if it was deleted, and as it stands now it deserves to be deleted because of the way it violates BLP. Here is one example (there are many more):
Offen absconded with his young daughter in the midst of a custody battle with his first wife. For seven years, Offen and his daughter drifted from apartment to apartment as he worked various scams, never remaining in one place for more than a few months at a time. During this period, he did not allow his daughter to have any schooling or friends, and trained her in the art of deception in the event he was apprehended.
This article is in really, really bad shape. daveh4h 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's likely few of these could be adequately sourced other than to tapes of Stern shows (which do exist, but in nothing like the accessibility and indexing level of even a small town library). There is an aspect in which (many? some? of) these are very likely personas rather than real people, but sorting that out will be all but impossible without reliable sources, and they are certainly portrayed as the latter. If we can't properly source, this should be stubbed back to a list of the ones we already have sources for like Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf. --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep on the grounds that the article survived AFD less than 3 weeks ago with a combination of WP:SNOW speedy keep and the nominator withdrawing. Articles shouldn't be renominated repeatedly until a desired outcome occurs. The nominator of the first AFD made the statement that the withdrawal was based on the assumption the article would be suitably improved. But more than 3 weeks needs to be allowed for this to occur. This, of course, does not apply to any content that may be considered legally dangerous, etc. under WP:BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm the nominitor of the last AFD and I withdrew that nomination based on the fever with which editors were coming up with sources. I'm wondering why that didn't translate into improvements in the article. The focus has instead been on a edit war over inclusion of a particular person in this group. Actually adding the sources that were discussed will make this all go away.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to de-emphasize the name of the individuals: among the guests were X who did Y, " and so on. I am particularly concerned by the inclusion of details about events following the show in the lives of people no longer associated with it. This article is a real test for my adherence to the principle of NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep recently underwent AFD and is better, IMHO than creating individual pages for each Wack Packer. Let's just work on rewriting it a little. Valley2city 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A collection of unreferenced claims about numerous people, appears to breach WP:BLP. WWGB (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination is pretty weak. The "souce it or lose it" is a nice thought but if that were the case, 90% of the material on this project would go "poof". Articles that need improvement are not just deleted. Is there some other issue here? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ps, delete any negative, unsourced, BLP issue material and clean it up. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it a rest already Woodchucks! James1906 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep it, but just clean it up and source it appropriately. Sniggity 16:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniggity (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Rivals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Since its last deletion, article still does not demonstrate how the subject is notable per WP:N guidelines. I've found one possible reliable review here but multiple sources are required. Marasmusine (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This might be able to be kept through cleanup. There are some sources out there, explained in the last AFD. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only source refered to in the last AfD was Top Web Games. Their directory entry is no good for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The interview looks fine as a reliable source, but what's needed are reviews. Here's GameVortex's review and Jolt's review. There's quite possibly more out there, but that's enough for the evil triangle of GameplayDevelopmentReception. Someoneanother 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A pleasure, always. Someone another 07:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Someone another's links indicate adequate notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:36, 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 Delete, no evidence article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ahern[edit]

Incorrectly tagged for speedy, but nominated for deletion anyway as his roles are very minor, mostly 1-2 episodes. Punkmorten (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says "most famous for his role in the soap opera One Life to Live as Senator Graham." In the One Life to Live character list, his role is not even mentioned. The rest of his roles are very minor. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't even find his role(s) in the character/actor lists, as the characters seem to be too minor for the actor to be considered notable. --JamieS93 12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Porter[edit]

Contested prod. The article does not meet our notability guideline because there is no coverage of the subject by any reliable sources. WODUP 07:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable enough for wikipedia, also lack references. Dwilso 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable guy. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sourced, and just claims to have beaten Rasheed Wallace in an M.C. duel. This is just a non-notable article. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't MySpace, & heaven knows, there's enough trivial crap on WP already. Trekphiler (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Because Eli Porter is da bess mayne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.97.7 (talk) 16:22, 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. Davewild (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jabbaar George[edit]

Not quite notable enough. None of his credits from the two supplied links seem to suggest that he is anything more than (a) a commercial actor, (b) an independent film actor, or (c) an extra. I'd love to hear his Chris Tucker impersonation though. So Awesome (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A commercial actor who has also had minor roles in independent films. Not notable for Wikipedia. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not significant. Not worth the trouble, especially as a BLP. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DramaBox[edit]

This page is unencyclopedic, and even though I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, I think that this page is very much like an advertisement, and is not written encyclopedically; rather, it is much like a story about EVERYTHING about the subject; it's not necessary. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Anturiaethwr 06:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete It is not a notable theatre. It is unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, non-notable charity organization. This is also written like an advertisement. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable spam. It should be noted that the creator of the article blanked this afd and removed the afd template from the article--Jac16888 (talk) 02:16, 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. Dreadstar † 06:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How To Destroy the Universe[edit]

I'm not sure that "How to destroy the universe" belongs here. Plus, I'm not sure why the author wrote it. Maybe it's just me... – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 05:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, im the created of this page, i created it (as it says in the talk page) because of a link here Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year i created 2 very quick, somewhat reasonable hypothesis'. --AndyCook (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and See![edit]

When I made this about 1 1/2 years ago I didn't have the Wikipedia:Reliable sources in mind. Now we know the pirated game exists but I do not see any notable coverage in reliable, third party sources. Therefore I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia any longer. I don't know if any Russian or Chinese sources cover this, but I really doubt it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want to get rid of it, I guess you can, but I don' think it's necessary. WP is not paper; most video games are notable in that they've been published and played by many people. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 05:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to read what our notability guidelines actually say establishes notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additionally, given what I've read of this game (on Encyclopedia Obscura, although that link isn't working anymore), I'd be surprised if many people have played it. I'm not sure it was ever meant to be released. Anturiaethwr 06:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The link here works [64] - Get past the Chinese to see the English. BTW, it seems like an "Asian original" - Unfortunately the Red Eye link no longer works. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any Opera users trying to check out that link: no UTF or Western European character encoding works for it, but it shows up (mostly in Chinese, but it's there) in Firefox. Anturiaethwr 07:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent and reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Unlicensed games typically aren't notable; naturally, there are exceptions, but this isn't one of them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:37, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Kuo[edit]

High school student who won a regional art award. Since 1,200 of these awards are given out per year, I'm not really convinced this establishes notability. (Especially since a google search turns up about 3 hits). Bfigura ^(talk) 05:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's an national award.

Delete as nominator, for the reasons listed above. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Anturiaethwr 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete: person not notable enough. Dwilso 08:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The nom basically says it all, only 3 g-hits. A non-notable high school student (who probably authored the article himself). CSD A7. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Shackley‎[edit]

Removed prod. unsourced. Does not meet WP:PROF there is no sources to indicate this person or her body of work are well known. Not notable. Seems somewhat WP:FRINGE. This article seemed to have been spammed into other articles [65][66]

Delete Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:PROF, 24 reviews listed in Book Review Index, including LA Times, Nature, multiple reviews in American Anthropologist. Her book Wildlife Tourism has 71 cites in Google scholar, Visitor Management has 37, others with 10-30 each. Jfire (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems to be both notable as a cryptanthropologist (I think that's the term), for doing real research into folktales and so forth, as well as being a noted writer in cultural and natural tourism circles. (Next time, let {{unreferenced}} have more than ten minutes to work. You can always AFD if nothing happens in a month or two.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well being a BLP and unsourced it should either be stubbed or deleted. I chose the latter. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is notable enough, IMO.--Berig (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable professor, with many hits in Google Scholar. Many reliable sources are available. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 13:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
skeptical Not a university professor, a teacher in a business school. Possibly notable as a travel writer. DGG (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real social dynamics[edit]

This article fails WP:CORP in that there seem to be no significant third party sources on its subject. The only source is the organization's website, and the article's primary purpose seems to be advertising Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has several references to credible magazines and news sources. Reference to the company website seems appropriate. Referral to Hitch and other non-supported material was deleted.

Keep There's a significant amount of coverage in the PUA community, which is where you'd expect it to be notable. 50k hits on Google. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 05:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: good article, but need touch ups. Dwilso 06:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel it does not reach notability status, and the claims that hitch was based on the founder's personality I can find no support for on-line. This is yet another seduction technique company as far as I can see. I will note however that I'm not active in that space! BananaFiend (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be written like an advertisement, trying to get people to buy their courses. I also see no reliable sources here. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Promotional intent seems obvious, and no notability shown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd be willing to change my view if reliable sources were included to establish that this is something more than self-promotion. --Russ (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I agree with Smerdis and RussDoug Weller (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably speedy; does not appear to be sufficiently different from the last two deletions. Also fails our notability guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however I would be willing to change my !vote to keep if the company's notability could be verified via a reliable, third-party, published source. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete -some of these "sources" are blogs and bulletin boards. No google news hits for the group except for one from the founders old university's journal.[67] A former Queen’s student has become a world-renowned pickup artist. which mentions it only because he's an alumnus. Neil Strauss did an expose of the seduction community in general, not just this group. Merkin's mum 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment OptimistBen says "There's a significant amount of coverage in the PUA community, which is where you'd expect it to be notable." But this is not a PickUpArtist wiki, we need notability in reliable sources which is where you'd expect a wikipedia article's subject to be notable.:) Merkin's mum 00:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad for the company...one would think that if their system is that notable, the article should be about the system rather than the company selling the system. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a spamvertisement to me, and as such, should be deleted on that ground. Further, it was deleted once already, and lacks any significant assertions of wide notability, or even significant niche notability. ALL the citations and most of the further reading elements are self-sourced, and the amount of mention in those few 'further reading' examples is indetermination, meaning it could have just been one of four or five names in a list. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, per nom. X Marx The Spot (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional article on a non-notable company Bfigura ^(talk) 03:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, or still better, WP:CSD#G4 speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination). ➪HiDrNick! 08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I compared Google blogs and Google Newsgroups searches (for the entire phrase between quotation marks) and notice that this thing is relatively unknown in newsgroups. Anything I find seems like stuff spilling over from blogs and personal web sites - though there are a limited number of passing references (such as "This after the "Real Social Dynamics" stuff too.", "but I can't bring myself to buy products that are marketed so... I can't choose between 'shamelessly' and 'needily' "). Any google search immediately puts seven sponsored links for RSD (and RSD only) on the page. Come on, all this proves that they are spamming big way. And the only third party sources are (potential) customers complaining on newsgroups. Kill with an axe, I'd say.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see the primary and secondary sources that I added to the article. Now it includes newspapers, magazines, DVDs, webpages, and a best-selling book. --Ellmist (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment if it's kept, someone might edit it so it accurately reflects what the sources say about the founders. So maybe we should delete it because of eventual WP:BLP concerns, to protect their reputation and feelings.:) Merkin's mum 23:54, 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 Redirect to Identified at least until it is released. Davewild (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneakernight[edit]

This article does not assert any notability rationale per WP:MUSIC. I attempted to redirect to its album, but my edit was reverted. Rather than edit war, I submit this to AfD. Erechtheus (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Redirect to the album article Identified for the time being, as it will be released in May. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Needs to be merged with identified. Dwilso 06:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect: No need for deletion, just either keep it or redirect to Identified because it will be released soon. Piece-of-Me-08 (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect:Not enough meat for a standalone article.Kww (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album article until the single is released. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). I suggest a serious attempt be made to remove crystalballery, POV content, and OR and then in a few months, if this still seems unacceptable, to try AfD again. It was simply too difficult to argue for its deletion with arguments that really call for editing to counter the plethora of keep recommendations. Many of the participants of this AfD referred to guidelines as policies, and essays as guidelines, and wikiprojects proposals and other editors comments elsewhere as precedent. Everyone involved should do a little homework before a round two, so future discussions can be less messy and more on-point. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Call of Duty[edit]

Characters have no notability in of themselves. Almost all of the material is included in the various articles for each iteration of the game. Much of the article currently is being used for speculation as to the fates of characters in Call of Duty 4, something that is completely original research per that page's talk page consensus, hence this article is being used as a POV fork. Also, reads very much like a game guide. Lacking any significant sources as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I thought the running consesnus was the it is better to have lists of characters rather than having to fend off page creation of each one, piecemeal. I know that there are character lists for other games out there. But the OR and sourcing problems probably need to be worked out.Protonk (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If that's your only reason, then we should delete. There is no "running consensus". See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'd recommend a delete for individual character articles too. That said, if we don't delete this non-notable list, I'd support a merge into the Call of Duty (series) article. Randomran (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm clearly not making an Other stuff argument. There is guidance from WP:CLN and WP:SAL that can help us out here. I would also suggest that it is a HUGE waste of time to attempt to start new on every AfD. If we have some precedent with which to work, then we can maybe adopt that precedent to fit the current, specific case. In this case, there may be a precedent of keeping game character lists when the individual characters are not notable as long as some reliable, verifiable source can be found to support the notion that they are notable in toto. That is different from saying other stuff exists. For me to make THAT argument, I would have to say, X game list exists, therefore Y game list is justified in existing regardless of the complaints against it. Do you think that is the argument I have made? Also, this policy provides some direct guidance on the subject. Nothing on the list there directly prohibits what is on this article (with the possible exception of #7, which is only proposed, not enacted). Of course, the absence of prohibition does not imply endorsement. But we might as well be clear when we are talking about policy and consensus. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Protonk. --GHcool (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the preferred way to do it, rather than to have individual articles of the minor characters, or try to handle it in one long and confusing article. How far to subdivide it is an editorial matter, not one for AfD. DGG (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heaps undue weight on lightweight characters and 'silent protaganist' player characters. There is nothing here which warrants a separate character section within individual game articles, let alone a character article. They're plot elements, cover them in plot. It is much better to have a self-contained list for characters, but that's assuming that the characters have enough depth to warrant one. Too often the focus on characters is pushed beyond the point of bloody silly. Someone another 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Protonk.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as it is not being used as a POV fork-- Protonk is right this is better then a bunch of septate articles SirBob42 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most characters very uninportant and could eaisy fit and pertaine to thier respective articles. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see why a character article would be warranted for minor characters and the silent protagonist of each game. There's hardly any content to place for these, and it would be much better covered within the respective plot sections of each article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists. Coherent, verifiable, discrminate, organized, and notable list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Another way of looking at it is this is a WP:NOTABILITY issue, where game is notable but the characters in it are not (by themselves) notable. I agree this is better than multiple small articles. Even better would be no article at all. Post a link to a fansite from the main article and let this one go. Randomran (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ITSCRUFT. A list of characters is not a "how to", which is what the gameguide guidelines concern, i.e. cheat codes and the like. The characters of a notable series on multiple platforms are notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete or merge to main article - Please read WP:GAMECRUFT. Articles should offer an "encyclopedia overview of what the game is about", and not "an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. Such topics should be moved to one of the gaming wikis: Encyclopedia Gamia for general info/trivia...". That's where this kind of stuff belongs belongs. Notability is not inherited. A notable series, yes. But this clearly fails WP:N because the characters are not independently notable. Summarize it and merge it into the main article, or transwiki it to a game guide wiki. Randomran (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not take arguments with the nonsense "word" cruft in them as valid per other editors. Moreover, notability is inherited. The characters are collectively notable in a list article of this nature. Per our first pillar, we are also a specialized encyclopedia and such material is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on video game characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Correction: Whether you like the word "cruft" or not, I'm citing a policy that you should acquaint yourself with. You, on the other hand, are citing a single revision in some AFD discussion a few months ago. And while WP:NOTINHERITED isn't a policy, it is an essay you should acquaint yourself with. We always, always judge the notability of a topic independent of its "parent" article. Randomran (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is NOT a policy, but a guideline and there's a difference. Plus, it even says on the top of the page that "it is not set in stone". The article is consistent with a policy about specialized encyclopedias and verifiability. We do NOT judge the notability of a topic independent of its parent article when we deal with spinoff articles or sub-articles. Notability is absolutely inherited in this case and even if it wasn't, which it is, the characters are themselves notability in that they appear in multiple games on multiple systems and are verifiable in multiple publications. Anyway, you should acquaint yourself with User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yet another correction - see WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. Saying that the notability rule is only a guideline and shouldn't be followed is inaccurate. Making up your own rule is even worse. I'm all for keeping articles around, and avoiding deletion where an article can be salvaged. But I've seen ZERO attempt to assert this is notable other than to assert that the parent article is notable. Which is irrelevant to this discussion, per WP:INHERITED. That's in addition to policies like WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT -- which whether you like the language or not, restricts wikipedia from describing trivia in every single game. We give broad overviews of topics, not lists of every item/weapon/character/setting. Transwiki this article and let it go. Randomran (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Additional corrections - The article passes our notability guidelines and if you click on the examples in the arguments to avoid essay, it also notes that declaring notability not being inherited is also to be avoided as it clearly states that sometimes it is. Whether you like the language or not, the policies and guidelines are worded in such a manner that permits this article to remain. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then allow me to return to something that is official policy. WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And if you say that this has inherited notability, then you have to explain why. They are not instantly notable - whether inherited or not - simply because they are characters in a medium. You need to provide an argument for why this article is exempt from policy. You again state that they "are verifiable in multiple publications", but you have produced only one viable source and that does not give any substantial information that warrants a separate article. If it is true that they are significantly covered in the non-trival third-party reliable sources that demonstrate notability - as outlined in WP:N - in the real world, not in the series, then produce them. The one GameSpot source you've produced is only useful for verifing who the characters in a single game are, it does not offer any infomation on real-world aspects. And stating that something is just a guideline and we don't have to follow it is not a good way to enhance your argument either. -- Sabre (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least one reliable, third party source has been found and we know the topic is covered in a variety of published primary sources and it is reasonable to suspect that they are likely covered in at least some published game magazines. These games are played by people in the real world and these publications are read by people in the real world. Thus the characters in Call of Duty have significance to the real world. Heck, they even made action figures of some characters from the games. So in a sense you can have play with or display some characters in the real world. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I've said, the GameSpot article does not give the signficiant coverage to develop the proper aspects of the article: you can use it to cite who the characters are, but beyond that its useless. And you seem to confuse what is meant by real-world. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, so simply because something is used in real-world does not mean that it is notable - because that would be absolutely everything on the planet. See WP:WAF#Secondary information - real-world information on a fictional subject is not that someone who actually exists once used it somewhere, but is information on the creator, the design and the development, factors that have influenced development, popularity among the public, reception by critics and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. That is the sort of information you need to get. Toys are good from this persective, but what you really need to justify the article's continued existence is to build from information on development and reception. Since there now seems to be some element of potential for the article's real-world content, I'm changing to neutral. I'm not opposing to a delete because I'm not convinced by the sources produced so far that there is sufficient real-world information for the separate article, as much of the sources produced so far could be used as effectively in a cultural impact section of the series article.-- Sabre (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Toys that exist in the real world and a game played by people in the real world are "real world." The GameSpot article by itself may be insufficient, but coupled with other sources and given time can be expanded on. For an article that you agree has potential and that has been suggested elsewhere in this discussion has a redirect location, I am not opposed to a redirect without deletion so that if/when I have a chance to go through my back issues of GamePro, Electronic Gaming Monthly, etc., I do find additional sources, I am able to add them without having to start over from scratch. After all, if I was able to find the information on the toys in one day for an article that has been around for a few months, I think it reasonable that given additional time and because I have subscriptions to game publications (although it will obviously take some time to go through all the back issues, especially with my basset hound undergoing additional surgey now to have multiple tumors removed; really depressing actually as she is not doing too good at all), that I have a realistic shot at improving the article further. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have my sympathies about your dog, I can understand how that can disrupt your ability to edit here, but did you even read the guideline I linked to? Real-world information is NOT "it actually physically exists somewhere". Everything is used by people in the real world. Real world information is outlined in WP:WAF#Secondary_information and it is not simply that it is used by real people. It goes deeper than that, and merchandising (ie the toys) is part of that. But simply saying "its got real-world information because real people play it" is naive and completely irrelevant. Please, read the guideline and understand what is meant by the term "real-world information". -- Sabre (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for the sympathy regarding my basset hound. She is still having issues going to the bathroom, so we'll see. I'll likely upload a picture of her most prominent scar from this latest surgery on my talk page in the near future. Anyway, I did read the guidelines and I do still believe that the articles passes it, but as you suggested above ("I can understand how that can disrupt your ability to edit here"), I am somewhat out of it for now, so I'm not sure I have much else I can add. Thank you for the spirited discussion! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral: I'm seeing potential, but I remain unconvinced. notability is not inherited, and the characters of Call of Duty are not independently notable. They can be easily covered within the main game articles in a properly constructed characters section. There is simply no need for a spinoff character article for this series. The article is also entirely unreferenced, and is likely to remain so due to a high probability of no notability. The actual extent of character interaction in the games also means that the level of content is unlikely to grow and is useless to an encyclopedia reader, it serves only fans of the game and is undue weight on the topic. -- Sabre (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is inherited and the characters of Call of Duty are collectively notable in the capacity of a compilation article such as this one. There is a need for a spinoff character article for the series as it allows editors for an opportunity to expand on the information on these characters using various publications about these characters in a manner that would be inappropriate for the main article. Sourcing problems should be addressed via Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than outright deletion. The characters in this game are recognizable to millions of people around the world and so is of relevance to readers and editors alike. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then provide sources that show that they are recognisable to millions of people around the world, because I seriously doubt that. The burden of proof for notability is on the editors of the article, and unverified statements that basically go along the lines of "its notable because I think it is" are not valid arguments. Wikipedia:Verifiability sums it up nicely: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Prove their notability with information reception and development using reliable, third-party party sources (not fansites) and I'll gladly change my view to a keep as it would then be a surmountable problem. In the likely event that there aren't the information can be easily covered within the respective game articles - Call of Duty 4 already does a reasonable job of this. If/before you reply to this, search for sources that prove notability for the characters of Call of Duty. Don't reply by simply stating what you personally believe is the case, as without sources to justify your argument it is not valid. And linking to a post by another editor for an old AfD on a real-world subject (not a fictional one like this) on which the article no longer exists is not a good way to try to back up your point. That is, after all, only the opinion of one editor, and you've taken it out of context. -- Sabre (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you search the books found here, you should find sufficient references to improve the article and given time, I would reckon going through the old issues of various video game magazines would turn up additional and absolutely third-party sources. Thus, I think a case could be made for Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Reliable websites do seem to cover these sorts of articles, i.e. such as here if we want to have an article on the characters for the whole series, then we could use reliable sources like the aforelinked one for say the second game in the series. Combined with strategy guides as primary evidence and magazines, I think we have something to go with. If you think that the characters can indeed be sufficiently covered in the articles then I don't see any gain by outright deleting the article. It was obviously created in good faith and so is a legitimate search term, thus wouldn't a redirect be more logical? Finally, there is a genuine interest in this article by our readers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you've got a start with the GameSpot article, but you can't base it all on one source, and it doesn't really give much detail on the real-world elements of the characters - it just says who they are. The strategy guides aren't third-party and are arguably self-published, so they can't be used to establish notability. And article viewing statistics are absolutely irrelevant - it doesn't matter how many people look at an article if the article is below acceptable standards. You'll need to produce a few more sources - completely independent of the game - to convince me. How were characters received critically (try reviews, but you're looking for significant coverage of the story and characters, not just a few sentences)? What factors influenced development of the characters (it seems to be generally accepted you can use primary sources like development commentary for this if you have sufficient third-party sources)? It needs multiple sources to justify a separate article, otherwise the coverage of the subject is not proportional to its notability. Take a look at the featured and good character articles other at WP:VG, they provide perfect examples for what sort of sources you're after. In relation to redirecting, a redirect still produces the same result (ie more appropriate and relevant coverage in respective game articles), and should probably aimed at the Call of Duty series article. -- Sabre (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you can see below, I have also found some coverage on a series of toys they made based on the characters that have some notoriety due to including a controvsersial SS officer action figure in the series. So, a combination of the GameSpot article, the sources on the action figures, and strategy guides that discuss the characters provides a balance of primary and secondary sources and per our policies and guidelines, primary sources are okay when they are not the only sources used in the article and they won't be at this point. If I get a chance to visit my brother this weekend who has (or at least had last time I was there) the Call of Duty 4 XBox 360 game and guide, I can see if that can be used in some context. But I don't see even in a worst case scenario as you note above if there is a redirect location why we couldn't do that without having to delete the article and along with it editors' contribution histories. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Possibly merge the article with Call of Duty (series). Information in this article is very useful and important to the series. Gary King (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or merge~~Comment: In the article's current state it has done little to assert notability. Even though the characters are from highly notable games, notability is not inherited. And while there are several successful examples of character lists, they are successful because they were able to assert notability with multiple third party reliable sources. There is some useful information in here, but that information would probably be best in the series article or in the separate game articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- These are characters from a notable series of games covered in at least third-party source, multiple strategy guides, and thave have been even made into toys. Plus, notability is inherited. All of the concerns are of a Wikipedia:SOFIXIT nature. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While notability may be inherited in the media, it is not inherited on Wikipedia. Notability will need to be established for it to stay. Game guides are weak sources to base notability on, but third party sources about the characters and related merchandise are certainly acceptable. I'm willing to see if the article can be cleaned up, and will hold off support keep or delete for while. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    - The toys have been covered: [68], [69], [70], etc.. They apparently planned on making a Nazi action figure as well, but cancelled it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, please stop asserting that notability is inherited. It's not, and your only source for it is a single person's assertion at another AFD. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am more than willing to do so if others are also willing to not just keep repeating it over and over again when the arguments to avoid essay also advises against saying it isn't inherited either. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The argument to avoid essays is a bit pointless given the subject matter. Essays are not an assertion of policy, but an explanation of a reason or thought. The fact others are stating "notability is not inherited" is probably because Le Grand keeps saying "it is inherited", which other people in turn are responding back with "notability is not inherited". It's a silly vicious cycle. It is apparent Le Grand understands the need to assert notability and is working to find and add in sources. It's probably best to revisit this AfD in a day or two to see how much progress is made rather than needlessly take time from both sides. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    - Yes, I am only saying it multiple times in response to when I see others repeatedly saying the opposite of it. You are right, it is indeed an unnecessary "cycle." And I think your observation is fair and reasonable. I suppose I just am frustrated in AfDs when I am making an effort to improve an article and others don't help. Any time spent here having to defend the article I am working to improve is time not being spent finding sources and adding text; however, I think it rude and disrespectful not to respond in a discussion to any posts made after my last post or to one of my posts, so I feel obliged to continue commenting here. Anyway, I have begun working on a section of the article that will address the action figures based on game characters. Please see Characters in Call of Duty#Action figures. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required for people to just drop what they are doing (or working on) or whatever, just to improve an article in deletion. You don't need to criticize others just because they don't want to improve the same articles you want to. I don't think it's rude to not reply to every comment in AFDs. Not everyone has the time to go back to where they posted, and reply each and every time. Assume some good faith, instead of thinking people are bad because of minor things. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the policy is to avoid one argument from two sides: that notability should be judged by the parent article. The point is you've yet to establish the notability of this article. If you spent more time establishing its independent notability, you might have a legitimate shot at convincing others to keep this article. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not really--its a split off subarticle--by whatever name we may be calling them this week--For a sufficiently notable work, the merit in having a separate article for t he characters is an purely editorial convention. It's the coverage of the subject as a whole which needs to be judged,not whether each individual section can or cannot stand on its own as if there were no main article at all. DGG (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not a game guide and the Call of Duty series is a notable videogame series. If there's speculation, remove it. And the games themselves are acceptable primary sources. And I see no evidence of a POV fork. So what's the problem? The article could also possibly be merged with Call of Duty (series). --Pixelface (talk) 10:43, 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 all, consensus is that the articles fail the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet Live Recordings[edit]

Bootleg albums not notable as per WP:MUSIC hellboy (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they do nothing more than provide track lists for the not notable albums[reply]

Delete per nom. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as I like Helmet, they're not at the point where bootlegs of their live shows would be notable simply because they are. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Gaming Officer[edit]

This title seems to be only held by a few people. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of sources exist about subjects with the title. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete provided. Compare King. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compare King? You must be joking. DarkAudit (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? They are both titles, both have plenty of coverage demonstrating use. What more would you like to see? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equating a ruler of a nation with somebody who is really just an employee with a fancy-sounding title is laughable. DarkAudit (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not asking you to compare the subject of King and the subject of the nominated article. He's asking you to compare them as articles on similar subjects; they are similar in that they are both articles about a title held by someone / some people. It doesn't matter if "King" is defined as a ruler of a nation. It's not about people who HOLD the title, its about the TITLE itself. If you want, compare it to Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, etc. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Jenner[edit]

DeleteThe person is not notable and should be deleted. Blahblah5555 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although I watch the page for vandalism and basically rewrote the article, I do find it questionable that he is included on Wikipedia. So far, his only claim to fame has been a six episode reality show (that was canceled after two eps) and an active social/dating life. He's also been on a few other reality shows and has done some modeling, but I'm not sure if that's enough to be notable for Wikipedia. Pinkadelica 06:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not especially notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Strictly a C-list star, but still worthy of inclusion here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites multiple references from People (magazine). If People (magazine) is a reliable source, then he passes. --Eastmain (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ke...Kee...Keep. Sorry, that's hard to spit out. As much as I'd like this guy to go away, he's notable. Multiple secondary sources, plays a role in two separate reality TV shows, significant "cult" following - seems to me like he fits WP:BIO. Mlaffs (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable. People that make cameos in reality shows aren't worth including in wikipedia if it is to be a worthwile reference. Bekrewe (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.164.167 (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this is a important charactor in a reality series that is sold worldwide, this page should be kept for now.--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:15, 23 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, individual notability has not been established, if sources to establish notability are available an article on all Aspire computers would be the best way to go. Davewild (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspire 2420 Series[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are in a similar vein:

Wikipedia isn't a directory nor list for every product ever produced by a company. nneonneo ^talk 02:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyCook/Acer_Models Wiki already had a few random acer pages, for example Acer_TravelMate_2420, of products randomly strung about wikipedia...I created a table and have attepted to start a few pages to fill the gaps, but maybe i should just give up, I've already put a large amount of time into creating what i already have, and im not going to continue until someone else agrees with my reasoning. --AndyCook_{Powered By} 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also didn't notice that this was the first entry on the list, this product appears on acers site, but not in its pdf thats why its not filled out like the other 10 or so pages... --AndyCook_{Powered By} 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is ongoing to merge Acer TravelMate 2420 with the main TravelMate article, which will likely happen. By the way, external links in signatures are highly discouraged; see WP:SIG. nneonneo ^talk 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically your saying that i should give up now? --AndyCook (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Empty specs, the articles don't even explain what is being discussed, and the template is in User space. Corvus cornix_talk 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well can the operation, suggestions for user space page deletion? --AndyCook (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Yikes. These pages are simply tables without context and, to a large extent, without content. (Remember, AndyCook, a Wikipedia article should tell its reader what it's about so clearly that even someone who's never heard of the subject would have at least a basic idea of what it is.) Even if the pages were cleaned up (so as to be legible), I don't think these laptops really meet our notability guidelines. Anturiaethwr 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

ya i understand, general consensus says, merge abstract pages into the main topic? --AndyCook (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Laptops will usually meet notability requirements easily by virtue of the many reviews that they attract. The author should start with such reviews as a source and build the article(s) upon them. If the Aspire range has many common features then a single article might be best. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) - Dougie WII (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia isn't a product directory. If the laptops are sufficiently notable, an article about Aspire computers can be written. (Maybe one exists already...) --Craw-daddy | T | 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: yes, there is such an article: Acer Aspire. nneonneo ^talk 00:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per the improvements to the article by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles which have established notability and persuaded the nominator of this. Davewild (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Yanehiro[edit]

A nearly contentless stub about a non-notable journalist from a local television station who has partial credit in writing a self-help book. I haven't been able to google up anything else which suggests she should pass WP:BIO. Trusilver 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the additions to the article and the references cited, I concede that the article should remain as it is currently barring anyone else wishing to argue for it's deletion. Trusilver 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just some random business person who happened to write part of an unsuccessful book. There is no reason for her to be on wikipedia. Blahblah5555 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as she hosted a show for a long time, is verifiable, and called a "broadcast pioneer" by one source. She also won SEVERAL Emmys (as well as a whole host of other awards and honors), hosted and acted in various films and television shows, and has co-authored not one but THREE books. Please see also here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Thus, she is significant as a host and in the business world as well. Please note that the article has improved from the nominated version versus the current version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gakusanjin[edit]

Completely unnotable, minor character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that has almost done nothing but remove PRODs and reverse merges. Collectonian (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into List of InuYasha characters.. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per above. Site is GFDL compatible, so shouldn't be a problem Bfigura ^(talk) 04:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert any notability via reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:35, 23 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) 07:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goryomaru[edit]

Completely unnotable, minor character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that has almost done nothing but remove PRODs and reverse merges. Collectonian (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into List of InuYasha characters.. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely non-notable character. Judging from the number of these characters at WP:ANIME/D, the InuYasha articles could use a serious cleanup effort. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:33, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garamaru[edit]

Completely unnotable, minor one-episode character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that gave no reason for removal and removed from multiple prods. Collectonian (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into List of InuYasha characters.. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely non-notable. It's a episode character that doesn't really deserve a mention in the character list, let alone its own article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:32, 23 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 Redirect to InuYasha the Movie: The Castle Beyond the Looking Glass. The movie article is a better destination than the list of characters because the former contains background information concerning this particular character. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaguya (InuYasha)[edit]

Completely unnotable, minor one-movie character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that gave no reason for removal and removed from multiple prods. Collectonian (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into List of InuYasha characters.. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of InuYasha characters. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably best to redirect it back to the movie page, as it's most relevant there. This article fails to assert any notability in any case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:31, 23 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 List_of_InuYasha_characters#Other_characters. Page history is left intact so editors who would like to merge any basic relevant info won't encounter GFDL issues or difficulty retrieving materials.--PeaceNT (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubaki (InuYasha)[edit]

Completely unnotable, minor one-episode character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that gave no reason for removal. Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into List of InuYasha characters. Minor and non-recurring character. Excessive plot. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into List of InuYasha characters.. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of InuYasha characters. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor, non-notable character. Fails to assert any notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:30, 23 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 List_of_InuYasha_characters#Y.C5.8Dkai-Wolf_tribe. Page history is left intact so editors who would like to merge any basic relevant info won't encounter GFDL issues or difficulty retrieving materials. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayame (InuYasha)[edit]

Completely unnotable, minor character in the InuYasha series that only appears briefly in three episodes. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that gave no reason for removal. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into List of InuYasha characters. This minor and non-recurring character appears only in anime, not in manga. Excessive plot. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge into List of InuYasha characters per Zerokitsune, and I'd like to make the same !vote for all of the InuYasha character articles that are popping up right now. (The only reason my "delete" is weak is that, knowing next to nothing about InuYasha, I cannot say whether or not these characters are "minor.") Having tried to read these articles, I can say with confidence that, should any of them be kept, {{context}} and/or {{in-universe}} tags ought to be applied to all of them. Anturiaethwr 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia. Man, they really need a lot articles there.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of InuYasha characters. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fairly minor character with an excessively large article that's nothing more than extraneous plot details and original research. Fails to assert any notability to meet WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As per above and of course Trim it down to make it more suitable. While this page should also be Transwikied should it be deleted because that way it won't be completely deleted. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Made an edit to get rid of OR, and unneeded material to help should a Merge or Transwiki be viable and if a merge is needed then it will help get things started. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: it may a minor character, its part of the anime series, this page can be improved.Angel,Isaac (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be improved to meet WP:N, and simply being part of the anime series does not satisfy the aforementioned requirement, especially seeing that we typically don't create articles for the main characters of most series. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:59, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon rapid response operation[edit]

Week article 2 years old. Non-notable as is. Forsee no actionable growth or useful purpose. Lemmey (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The description in the article is pretty vague. It isn't an office or a policy so much as a media strategy or focus. It might do us well to have a broader article on Pentagon public affairs that discusses this in historical and contemporary contexts. As is, it's just part of a memo, with not much to indicate that it really happened the way outlined or was effective. --Dhartung | Talk
Merge with Pentagon message machine. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with an article on the Pentagon's media relations operation. Seems to pass WP:N. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now This has potential to grow. let's keep it around for now. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Of all the DOD's components, I saw today that we have nothing for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, probably a good place to shelve all Pentagon media shenanigans (=shady screwups). Maybe someone would like to go for a rewrite? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an abstract concept and not an actual subject, and it borders on OR. Any relevant information pertaining to the subject belongs at Force multiplication under #Message force multipliers, United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne), and Department of Defense under #Public Affairs, or #Criticism of the Pentagon. MrPrada (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, this is an actual subject. National Public Radio had a half hour program to day about this operation,[71] although it mainly focused on the "surrogate operation" part of this which has been in the news since Sunday (also up for AfD). -- Kendrick7^talk 03:24, 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 (but cleanup based on concerns expressed here). Cbrown1023 talk 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon message machine[edit]

We're creating stub articles about individual NYtimes articles now? What next listing all the letters to the editor? Lemmey (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) ~~:Article created Today by a now banned user. --Lemmey (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

This user isn't banned; I think you're thinking of the author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentagon rapid response operation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, your right got confused, striking comment. --Lemmey (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History with diff after removing most of the copyright violations and a meager POV cleanup. MrPrada (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again, it might do us well to have broader articles on Pentagon public affairs or Iraq War media interaction, but this is a POV title chosen by critics and more or less Criticism of the Pentagon. --Dhartung | Talk 03:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically just a cheap shot at the Pentagon. If it is really notable it could easily be included in another article on the Pentagon and doesn't need its own article here. Blahblah5555 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject needs more than one New York Times article before it can be considered notable enough for its own article. Until then, we can merge the contents elsewhere.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an additional 7 sources, including a lengthy redux in today's WaPo, bringing the total sources to 9. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pentagon rapid response operation. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD's aren't the place to propose a merge. These are completely separate topics, AFAICT. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I take that back. National Public Radio did a segment about this, which did imply this "surrogate operation" was a large subset of the rapid response program.[72] However, I loath merges via AfD, so I'd rather see this article survive independently for now. I also suspect people might start whining about WP:UNDUE were this merged over, given the blowback I'm getting on this article so far. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a major exposé in the NYT and several other media outlets have secondary coverage of the NYT's scoop today. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete this. This operation was quite successful, so I don't see how the operation is "criticism" and the operation is or was of an entirely different and separate nature than the project covered in the "rapid response" article. There have been calls now for a Congressional investigation of the Pentagon message machine, so I believe this stub has potential. Anyway, I was going to take a wait and see approach, but I'll expand the article in light of the AfD. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every political scandal sounds POV, because that is their nature. Is Watergate POV? When such an article is written without bias, one side is much more compelling than the other. That this may be one-sided criticism of the Pentagon isn't grounds for deletion. Of course, whatever defenses the Pentagon presents should be included. But any interesting, coherent event deserves coverage in WP if written up properly. Considering how much controversy is likely to result from this, there will probably be more available sources and information than the single NYT article. It sounds on the face of it like a major occurrence -- essentially a real-life conspiracy to dupe the public. If you think it isn't, put your rebuttal in the article and vote to keep, because now you're sharing valuable information. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the Times made any factual errors in reporting, this is going to be an important article. Keep it a stub and add to it carefully as facts are determined, but there is no pressing need to delete; I don't see on what grounds this isn't worthy of an article. JnB987 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and keep for now I think this article has potential, as does Pentagon rapid response operation (also up for deletion). Let's give it a chance to grow and see if this goes anywhere for say, a month. If things quiet down about this whole issue, then consider deleting it. However, this seems to be rather interesting, and quite notable. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's about the Pentagon, not the NYT Johnbibby (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its neither, Its about a NYT article about an alleged Pentagon program. The WP article shares the name as the NYT article, Pentagon message machine is unlikely the official name of any such program. --Lemmey (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you are getting "alleged" from. Sources are reporting this as an actual DoD operation, including interviews with former participants. As for the name :shrug: that's what several of the sources are calling it. --- Kendrick7^talk 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename under some appropriate title,such a pentagon manipulation of t he press, combined with other articles as appropriate--there is not evidence that this is or will become a standard term for their operations. DGG (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is what the operation is being called by several of the sources, so the title seems ok per WP:NAME. This operation may be worth mentioning on a more general article on the history of DoD press manipulation, but I don't see a rationale for an upmerge to a non-existent more broadly scoped article just for this specific instance. AfD isn't really the place to discuss radically changing the article scope. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Rewrite Definitely has a POV title. Maybe Newspaper Articles by the Pentagon? Also, some (all) of the article is written in a anti-Pentagon language, need to be NPOV-ed. It is salvageable. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename The title is an odd/vague choice that is not time-specific. One should be able to search for the situation using a search engine with relative success (not only find it via an interwiki). The article is long enough and well sourced to be on its own, but still needs to be tied into another (uncreated) general article about pentagon affairs as a whole. Additionally the intro should be more about the pentagon "message machine", not a wikipedia article about the content of a NYT's article that broke the story. -Kain Nihil (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Of all the DOD's components, I saw today that we have nothing for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, probably a good place to shelve all Pentagon media shenanigans (=shady screwups). Maybe someone would like to go for a rewrite? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This feels like a major piece of news in the making. Popersman
Keep I can't help but wonder if the "message machine" is working to have this article deleted. Inalienable rights have felt really alien lately... Raphael (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: important and verifiable. Hermant patel (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV title--there is no such organization or operation as "Pentagon message machine", the article is describing an abstract concept akin to something made up in school one day. The article also largely based on self-references to the Times article using a Q&A with the author(a primary source). Any relevant information pertaining to the subject belongs at Force multiplication under #Message force multipliers, United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne), and Department of Defense under #Public Affairs, or #Criticism of the Pentagon. MrPrada (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, after checking those references, the article has significant copyright issues, with most of it being word for word plagiarism. It will likely have to be deleted on technical grounds, then rewritten per one of the merge suggestions above. MrPrada (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I weened out the significant amount of text directly lifted from the articles and tagged the remaining references with {{Copyvio link}}, the edit history should be deleted if this closes as a keep. MrPrada (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you are confused about the proper application of WP:COPYVIO. I've reverted your mangling of the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the fact that you haven't restored the sentences that were directly lifted from the sources, I think you do know where the WP:COPYVIO occurred. Do not make me paste them here alongside the edit history, that will only exacerbate the problem. MrPrada (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your confused by my repeating the gist of what some of the sourced say via more or less verbatim one-sentence excerpts here and there, but this is common practice. I used to believe such excerpts would run afoul of copyvio myself, and have in the past been assured that they would not. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge. By no means is this the first such topic about a government response to controversy. Simply at the present time and in the U.S., there are related topics with more sourcing, such as the Office of Special Plans, which is far more sourced. I encountered this topic as a new category added to force multiplication, which is decidedly non-national, and see a link as WP:POV or WP:UNDUE. I might well support a general article on international experience with government news influencing, as well as country-specific articles of broader scope. For example, CIA influence on public opinion deals with issues over many decades, not one scandal. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:36, 23 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 deletion argument was that the list was unnecessary and unsuited to Wikipedia. The keepers argued that the list was organised, not indiscriminate and served a useful purpose as an alternative to many stub articles. There was a clear consensus that the page should be kept and, further, in my judgement the keepers had the better of the debate. Finally, there were no overriding policy arguments that would indicate deletion against the consensus. There are deficiencies with the page but these are editorial matters so I am tagging the article for improvements. (Non-admin closure) BlueValour (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of InuYasha terms[edit]

Fails WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the Complete Guide to InuYasha. Terms are already given similarly brief definitions when first mentions and in the relevant articles. Such a list is completely unnecessary. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some people may want to peruse a consolidated list — see a word that they have wondered about and think "Gee, so that is what that means. I always wondered about that." or they might discover that a word had a more specific or subtle meaning than they thought. The various articles which use the words often assume that the user already knows the meaning. Even if someone has defined the word, a later editor may have removed the definition or it may no longer be co-located with the first usage in the article. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Consolidated lists such as these seem to be a fair compromise to having hundreds of stubs, redirects, or disambiguations. After a few quick searches, you can find at least one term (Shibugarasu) within this list does not appear within any other article, and another term (Taijiya) that redirects to a disambiguation page for the English translation of the word, but otherwise lacks a world-specific definition within other related articles. While I agree with the premise that lists like these would be unnecessary if they contained no additional information, there is unique information in this article that would first need to be merged before such a scrapping. Forzan (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't not appear in any other article about the series, then why even define it here? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maybe transwiki over to the InuYasha wiki, but I see nothing useful here. Collectonian (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forzan: that's an argument for merge, not keep. —Quasirandom (talk)

Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia. Most of these term belong to the main character and his sword. Bakuryūha does not require explanation. It is explained in the article of the character or the sword. This kind of information does not require a list.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the list would be better.--88wolfmaster (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: List was created due to the multiple terms for many items, people, etc. With articles not completely consistent with term use, in addition to Tessaiga vs Tetsusaiga debate, a consolidated list is necessary.--88wolfmaster (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tessaiga vs Tetsusaiga is over. Tetsusaiga is the only term to use.Collectonian (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could have fooled me, considering not all traces of Tessaiga are removed (including this article). I told you guys it would not be as simple as going through all the main pages.--88wolfmaster (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep per WP:SAL and the really the article should be named Glossary of InuYasha terms.--88wolfmaster (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, organized, and verifiable list). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Forzan ~~Collectonian~~. I don't feel that it is terribly encyclopedic, but at the same time I'm a lot happier with this article than I would be with the mess of a hundred one-sentence stubs. Trusilver 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, you're saying keep per the person who says delete? Collectonian (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Got the wrong name there. Trusilver 00:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while I would say that comprehension of the series is important, this list is in need of serious cleanup and trimming of unnecessary items (listing "baka" is silly). I can't see why the premise of the series can't be explained in the main article, but this is an editorial decision that is left to local consensus. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:11, 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 he is only notable for one event thus falling under WP:BLP1E. Davewild (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee (trader)[edit]

Lack of notability beyond WP:BLP1E. He's a natural gas trader in the news for being dismissed after losing a large ammount of funds. However I can find no other notability beyond the single event. Cube lurker (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Only claim to notability is for one event, and even that is not much of a claim. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments above; whether or not the event is notable, the person is only notable as part of that event, thus WP:BLP1E. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. There seem to be two related issues here, not just one. The first is the huge amount of the bank's money that he lost. The second is the allegation that he received payments from Optionable Inc., a broker involved in the controversial trades. --Eastmain (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I wish I could vote a Keep for this one, because there seems to be a good deal of external coverage of the event(s). But the only reason he's semi-famous is because of one event (or two related events), and there's not much notability otherwise. --JamieS93 13:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's right to keep it under his name, as he is a central figure. apparently internationally notable. DGG (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and general non-notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above he is only known in relation to one event and the article has no real content, even though the event occurred last year, so it probably won't get much better. Blahblah5555 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InuYasha special items and attacks[edit]

Violates WP:FICT, with excessive unnotable WP:PLOT details. Individual weapons and attacks are already better covered in the individual articles for the characters listed. Collectonian (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be totally WP:OR. I'd say merge, but nothing really worth merging. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Inuyasha Wikia--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:PLOT, WP:NOT#INFO, WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists, i.e. verifiable and discriminate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and WP:OR. Trusilver 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because these items can also be confirmed in books, magazines, etc. on InuYasha, I'm not sure that it would be "original research." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 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 Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation[edit]

Original research; see Original research; see related AFDs at Heisenberg's paradox and New de Broglie's paradox. Bm gub (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom and WP:OR and WP:RS Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. nneonneo ^talk 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely original research. Anturiaethwr 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete as above, clearly OR Bfigura ^(talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a theory, it's not a research. Therefore nobody can repute it as original. The article merely comments that Schrodinger developed his equation by inverting the logic of the mathematical development. Any theorist, by reading the article, can realize that Schrodinger indeed inverted the logic. So, if one wants to defend the mathematics used by Schrodinger, he can do it in the page Discussion. The inversion of logic in the development of Schrodinger equation is a fact, which any one that knows mathematics can see by himself. The theorists avoid to speak about because it's not comfortable to them to recognize the fact. But because they neglect a fact does not mean that the fact does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 21 April 2008
- Comment if you have to do mathematics yourself to create the content for the page, as opposed to quoting someone else's math (from a peer-reviewed science paper), then that is a form of Original Research called Synthesis (Anonymous IP address(es), I hope you take the time to read these links). If theorists are not speaking about something, then it is not Notable, and thus doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You may think it sucks that Wikipedia can't host everything, but "Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth". No one is doubting that a phenomena exists, we doubt that any reputable sources are writing about it. -Verdatum (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verdatum, the theorists do not speak about several other misfires of theoretical physics in the midia, because they try to avoid that people like you get knowledge of them. But they speak about them among themselves. These questions are notable in the realm of Physics. Why people like you cannot have the chance to know them?
    - I don't want to sound like my rebuttal is that you can't speak english. You're ISP has been traced to brazil and I have the Good Faith that you are trying your best, but I genuinely can't understand your ending question. However, it seems that you are saying that it is the point of wikipedia to present information that otherwise wouldn't be published. In fact, the opposite is the case. Wikipedia is not interested in information unless it is Verifiable (again, please read this link). If you'd like to make such information known, there are plenty of places you can go to get webspace for free without all the restrictions of Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; agree these are OR. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious OR. If "the theorists avoid to speak about" then so must Wikipedia, as our standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Gandalf61 wrote: "as our standard for inclusion is [[WP:VER|verifiability"

Obviously Gandalf61 knows nothing of arithmetics, because the verifiability of the article is easylly made by looking at the Mathematics exhibited in the article. Even a 3 years old child is able to verify something based on Mathematics. I recomend to the experts of Wikipedia to ask the opinion of a mathematician, since they know nothing about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.233.159 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 April 2008

I suspect the above editor is the same as 189.48.110.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article shows a paradox. There is not such a thing as a original paradox. The paradox is a paradox. The paradox shown in the article is supported by the MATHEMATICS. Therefore the process of its verifiability must be made by considering the MATHEMATICS. If nobody discovered a paradox yet, it does not mean that it is an original paradox. There is not such a thing as original paradox. A paradox exists, or not. If the MATHEMATICS PROVES that the paradox exists, it makes no sense to call it as an original paradox. It is merely a paradox, and it exists thanks to the MATHEMATICS, and not because somebody discovered it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.116.203 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 April 2008

~~Keep~~ MightWarrior wrote: "I suspect the above editor is the same as 189.48.110.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) "

Dear MightWarrior, the merit of such our discussion is based either on your suspicion, or in the merit of the arguments exhibited by you opposer ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.116.203 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 April 2008

Duplicate recommendation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above. -Verdatum (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ MightWarrior wrote: Duplicate recommendation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD.

Well, just what prescribes the rules, where the first one is the following: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments".

This is just what have been done. In each reply is used a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT

Unlike, the wiki users are not folowing the wiki rules, because everytime they repeat the same argument: original research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, or redirect to Time Cube. Klausness (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original philosphical musings (i.e., wrong category for article), unsupported by published references. (It's not Time Cube, although that's a cute response.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious OR, to the extent that it's coherent.DGG (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Arthur Rubin writes: "unsupported by published references"

??????????????????????? So, according to Arthur Rubin the book Quantum Physics, by Eisberg&Resnick, published by Wiley & Sons in 1974, was never published

????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ DGG and Klausness wrote "obvious OR"

It's a repetition of the same argument. The wiki users dont get tired to repeat the same argument, everytime. And what is the worst: actually the article is not a research. The article shows a paradox. A paradox exists by itself, its existence does not depend of any research. So, the existence of a paradox is not a research. And since it is not a research, it cannot be an original research. Clear like water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That's 200.222.237.3's third !vote. nneonneo ^talk 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the first rule to discuss AfD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.63.4 (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is starting to look more like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUGGET the more I look at it. nneonneo ^talk 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a mixture of something in a standard textbook which the editor is not putting into proper perspective and a fringe theory which no serious scientist would say solves this "so called" paradox. The material covered by the second reference is frankly complete bollocks and it has no notability even as fringe science. --Bduke (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Bduke wrote: This article is a mixture of something in a standard textbook which the editor is not putting into proper perspective

Perspective ? The mathematical language does not allow us to put anything into a perspective we wish. The mathematical language brings impartial results. If the mathematics tells me that 2+2=4, I cannot put it into a inappropriate perspective 2+2=5.

Bduke wrote: "The material covered by the second reference is frankly complete bollocks and it has no notability even as fringe science".

What is under discussion is the inversion of logic in the Schrodinger's development of his equation. The second reference is not the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.63.4 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point. The WP:OR policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them. It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity. It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia. So, even though the proof that (for example) e is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source. The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not. Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically. You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments. Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research. You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data. For one, that isn't strictly true. For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research. I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear. If I need to be even more elementary, let me. the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms. The research is the revelation of that result to the world. Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it. The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first. Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article. Until then, no dice. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that the article creator has been blocked as a sock of W. GUGLINSKI, who engaged in the same kind of behavior; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#W.GUGLINSKI_again. sho y 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close: Article speedily deleted per CSD G5: page created by a banned user in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others. nneonneo ^talk 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New de Broglie's paradox[edit]

Original research; see related AFDs at Heisenberg's paradox and Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation. Bm gub (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom and WP:OR and WP:RS Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. nneonneo ^talk 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely original research. Anturiaethwr 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete as original research Bfigura ^(talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research; unsupported by reliable sources. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a theory, it's not a research. Therefore nobody can repute it as original. The de Broglie's interpretation on the relation λ=h/p indeed is disproved by that experiment (Michelson-Morley agglutinated to Davisson-Germer experiment). If any theorist want to refute such a fact, he can do it in the page Discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 April 2008

MightyWarrior wrote: unsupported by reliable sources . So, MIghtWarrior claims that the Mathematics is not a reliable source. Therefore we cannot take seriously his opinion, since he states that he does not consider the Mathematics as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 April 2008

- Reply You are exactly right. If you read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and WP:SYN you will see that application of mathematics is not a reliable source, it is synthesis, a form of Original Research that does not belong as the basis for an article in Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article shows a paradox. There is not such a thing as a original paradox. The paradox is a paradox. The paradox shown in the article is supported by the MATHEMATICS. Therefore the process of its verifiability must be made by considering the MATHEMATICS. If nobody discovered a paradox yet, it does not mean that it is an original paradox. There is not such a thing as original paradox. A paradox exists, or not. If the MATHEMATICS PROVES that the paradox exists, it makes no sense to call it as an original paradox. It is merely a paradox, and it exists thanks to the MATHEMATICS, and not because somebody discovered it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.116.203 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 April 2008

I suspect that the above editor is the same user as 189.48.110.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- MightyWarrior (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the first rule to discuss AfD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments".

Delete as WP:OR, possibly WP:SYN if the parts are sourced somewhere. That it is a paradox is WP:OR as we define it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and complete nonsense. --Bduke (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bduke said: ...and nonsense too

Dear Bduke, you must prove what you say. It's easy to claim that somebody says nonsense. Look, for example I can write: "Bduke says nosenses". But I would have to prove that you say nonsenses. Dont you think so?

And again, the first rule to discuss AfD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments".

Comment. To the second point, I did. I said delete as OR, which it clearly is. On the first point, the Quantum Ring Theory appears to be noticed by no reliable scientific sources. It is merely the work of one man who dreamed it up. I still maintain it is nonsense. Now, while AfD is not a vote, it is conventional to bold the word "Keep" only once and introduce comments on other comments with the word "comment" as I have just done. In that way the closing admin can get a good quick idea of the consensus before looking deeper. Also please sign your comments with ~~~~. --Bduke (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arthur Rubin wrote: "That it is a paradox is WP:OR as we define it".

Well, Arthur, in such a case we must delete the article Wave–particle duality, where it's written the following, concerning to de Broglie's paradox:

"Various interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt

to explain this ostensible paradox".

The theorists noted the de Broglie's paradox many years ago. However, the old version of de Broglie's paradox is only philosophical.

This New de Broglie's paradox shows the old de Broglie's paradox from a new way: via mathematics. Therefore the argument in favor of this new version of the de Broglie's paradox is stronger, because it is supported by the mathematics, while the old version was supported by philosophical arguments only.

Comment. No, the old version can be supported by sources. The mathematics has not been. We report sources, so this article is original research as "we define it" as Arthur Rubin said. --Bduke (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at the related AfDs, This user appears to have a history of Sockpuppetry, be sure to take note of that when tallying votes. -Verdatum (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the article creator has been blocked as a sock of W. GUGLINSKI, who engaged in the same kind of behavior; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#W.GUGLINSKI_again. sho y 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close: Article speedily deleted per CSD G5: page created by a banned user in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others. nneonneo ^talk 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as a dictionary definition, anyone can create a soft redirect to wiktionary as appropriate. Davewild (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discombobulated[edit]

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A definition of this word already exists on Wiktionary. JamieS93 01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. I don't see that this can have anything added beyond the definition. Anturiaethwr 01:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. per nom - already in wikitionary Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary as plausible search term for a dictionary definition. -- saberwyn 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, whatever works to get this pointing to Wiktionary. -- saberwyn 06:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a soft redirect per Saberwyn would be useful for users who don't know much about Wikipedia, but are looking for information., but it should be at discombobulate, the present tense. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree. If a soft wiktionary redirect really should be done, it would be at discombobulate, perhaps redirecting discombobulated to discombobulate. At Wiktionary, like any other dictionary, discombobulate is the main term, not the past tense form of it. --JamieS93 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Redirect per saberwyn/JMcC. It's helpful to point new users to wiktionary, and I don't think doing so violates policy at all. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, clearly not going to be deleted. Endorsing SynergeticMaggot's non-admin closure. Neıl ☎ 09:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonviolent communication[edit]

This was declined as a speedy, but to me it reads as advertising for this guys book with a dose of instructional content and a linkspam farm thrown on top. No links to reliable sources, and I couldn't find any either, so it seems to qualifiy as original research as well. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the moment. As a Peace Studies major, I've heard of this concept, and I think I can probably find some reliable sources before the AfD runs out (although it's the busy time of year for college students). If I can't, then I'll say so and change my !vote. I do agree, however, that the article could use some major improvement; it's certainly not neutral and the links at the end are far too numerous. Anturiaethwr 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep: "Advertising for this guy's book." Make that twelve books, at least. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life ranks # 9 (out of 100) on Amazon.com's list of Interpersonal Relations bestsellers and # 52 on the list of Psychology & Counseling bestsellers five years after its initial publication (# 693 overall). Speak Peace in a World of Conflict: What You Say Next Will Change Your World ranks 21 among Amazon's Conflict Management bestsellers. Courses in NVC are taught all over the world. I'm not sure why Beeblbrox was unable to find sources. I've added a "References" section with several. I agree with Anturiaethwr that the article could be written in more neutral language. Also agree that the links need triming. Sunray (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I actually saw that section before I commented; I offered to look for sources because I think it might be argued that those sources aren't quite up to snuff. I have no strong feelings about them, but I think some people might object that some of them aren't strictly "third-party," being interviews with the author; and that one of them is about the book, rather than about the concept itself. The Co-intelligence Institute one looks fine to me, but I don't know whether that alone is "substantial." If no one objects to your sources, then I'll just go with a plain "keep." Oh, by the way, I don't think the sales numbers on Amazon are reliable indicators of notability--neither for the book, nor (more importantly) for the concept itself. Sorry. Anturiaethwr 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with your comments about the sources. Most are not peer-reviewed. However, I think that they do establish notability, as do the amazon.com stats. A subject covered in a book at # 693 on Amazon's list is not un-notable. We could eliminate half of Wikipedia's articles if it were. Sunray (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Get rid of the spam - and everything will be fine. Sources will be easy - Ill see if I can find some. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. NVC is an important and valid method of conflict resolution and is well established. It is recognized enough that it deserves an entry. If the article seems to slighted then it should be rewritten, but the topic should not be removed completely.

Keep The term is at least thrown around a lot; any spam problems can be fixed without deleting it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 21 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, Gnan garra 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

afd reopened after closure as WP:SPEEDYKEEP by SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs)diff speedy keep requires No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. as the nominator hasnt with drawn the nomination and that the discussion continued after the closurediff indicates that this needs to run the full time period. Gnan garra 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats pretty laughable actually. Just because an editor makes a comment after an AfD is closed, does not mean it needs to remain opened. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as describe in detail at WP:WQA#User:SynergeticMaggot and his/her interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP it was reopen due not meeting SpeedyKeep closure the discussion after clossure shows that WP:SNOW wasnt an alternative either. Gnan garra 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs a serious rewrite to make it clear that this is not merely the natural concept of communication without violence, but rather a specific term coined in a series of books by Marshall Rosenberg that has a certain degree of real-world importance. I don't think this is advertising as it is: in general, any concept covered on Wikipedia is promoted just by the existence of the article, but this seems to meet our standards for inclusion. Mango juice^talk 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. About notoriety: Googling for Nonviolent communication gives 7300 .edu hits, 2200 .gov hits, and 840 scholar hits. Most of these are third-party discussions of how Rosenberg's nonviolent communication can be deployed in psychology, education, health care, and in international peace-making. gmarceau (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, probably a hoax, no reliable sources to verify anyway. Davewild (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Singh[edit]

Links/sources at bottom do not work, false information, not a real model Blahblah609 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable according to the article itself; outside sources are hard to find because "Priyanka" and "Singh" are both common names. Anturiaethwr 01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete Almost certainly a hoax- source links don't work (notice there are access dates that are way earlier that the article creation), and the creator is an SPA. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax.--Berig (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, Creator supports deletion, no evidence that article meets the relevant notability guideline and is only the bishop of a small church making the usual presumption that bishops are notable less applicable in this case. Davewild (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Butler[edit]

Not notable, completely unreferenced. Fails Google Test. Note that although he is a bishop, it is of a rather small splinter sect. Prodded earlier, but since I'm a noob and forgot to put a reason, prod was removed. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I'm not Roman Catholic. I don't generally see much notability in small splinter groups that appear to be splitting from Rome on the basis that Rome has split with the 'real' church. But as an American Episcopalian, I have similar feelings about the bishops and clergy that are splitting from my church. Take the possible bias as you will. Still, while there are clearly some notable groups that don't fully recognize the current Pope (because they have significant followings) this one doesn't appear at the moment to be one of them. On that basis, delete. -- BPMullins | Talk 01:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and no sources. Do we really need an article for every single priest or bishop in the world? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, lack of sources. Fails WP:BIO. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, bishops have been considered notable in the past. There seem to be only three bishops in this hierarchy though the number of adherents is unclear. The biggest problem is that there isn't a good definition of traditional Catholic. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even without the usual references, bishops (like members of a national or sub-national legislature) are probably notable. --Eastmain (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Important thing to note is that even though he's a bishop, its of what is basically a splinter sect. Also the lack of external references is problematic. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm trying to determine more about how fringe this group is. There is some context at Ngo_Dinh_Thuc#Sedevacantism. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's this from Karl Keating (a dialogue with Louis Vezelis, who consecrated Butler). I feel there's a level of recognition at least to that level, but what we probably need is an article on the breakaway Franciscan Order. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bishops of major churches with a territorial organisation are notable, as major figures in their communities, with administrative responsibilities, and invariably articles about their work in appropriate sources. Bishops of a small splinter group are notable only if significance can be actually shown by sources. (Parallel to the mayor of a large city being notable, of a small town only in the unusual cases if there is clearly reliable evidence, or if notable in some other respect, such as authorship. ) Based on [73] this is a denomination with a total of 6 clerics, of whom 4 are bishops. The order might be worth a Wikipedia article, for we have been inclusive about even small religious groups with an actual existence, so as not to avoid making spiritual distinctions. But not the individual people associated with it. For the record, the group's publications include a useful checklist of other splinter Catholic groups that they consider as illegitimate at the generally recognized RC church. [74].

I created this page and I support its deletion; and yes, by the post-Vatican II Church's standards, this Bishop and his Order would be considered very small/fringe. Bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Order has 6 members - 2 of which are Bishops. 2 are Priests. 2 are Brothers. Bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page was already deleted last year and I re-created it. All the more cause for re-deletion. Bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 18:14, 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 deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heisenberg's paradox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I can't find any reference to this paradox on the internet. I am nominating for deletion per WP:OR: appears to be purely original research. nneonneo ^talk 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and WP:RS as I cant find no reliable sources. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Scholar turns up one result (and it can't be accessed); a plain Google search turns up a few results, but they all seem to refer to something more along the lines of Schrödinger's cat; JSTOR knows nothing about it. Anturiaethwr 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete as NN fringe OR. There is no serious scientific question as to why there are no dineutrons; isospin was a perfectly acceptable solution, and its status as a "pure mathematical concept" (as though that was a problem) was resolved with the discovery of quark flavor. And, hey, look! The author of this page has several page creations all referenced to the same book. Bm gub (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as originial research Bfigura ^(talk) 04:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Original research ? That is not a theory, it is not a research. It's merely a report on a well-known fact: that Heisenberb introduced several paradoxes in physics due to the application of his strange criterion of research. The own Heisenberg recognized it. In the page 99 of the book Unification of Fundamental Forces, Heisenberg tells us that several physicts find very strange his method. Look what he wrote in that page: "I received a letter from a person saying that was a scandal to suppose that there would not exist electrons within the nuclei because it was possible to see them to leave out from there; I brought entire disorder to physics with hypothesis so nonsensical that nobody could understand my aim" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 21 April 2008

Delete agree that these all look like OR and should be deleted. Possibly a minor mention might be made in the existing articles pointing out the possible controversy, but only if it can be substantiated with reliable sources. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bm gub said: “...was resolved with the discovery of quark flavor”.

The hypothesis of quark flavor does not support Heisenberg’s criterion. Unlike, the proposal of quark flavor actually deposes against Heisenberg’s criterion. Indeed, with the hypothesis of quark flavor the theorists are introducing a physical cause for explaining why the dineutron does not exist. Well, such a physical cause does not exist in the Heisenberg’s solution based on the isospin (Heisenberg's solution is against the causality principle). With the quark flavor the theorists try to get back the causality principle to physics. Therefore the own theorists recognize that Heisenberg’s solution is not acceptable, because the isospin is a pure mathematical concept, and it cannot be the cause of a phenomenon. With the introduction of the quark flavor, the theorists actually have additioned the fundamental thing missing in Heisenberg’s solution: the CAUSE of the phenomenon, which means that the own theorists recognize that Heisenberg’s solution is not satisfactory. Therefore the quark flavor reinforces the point of the article: that Heisenberg’s concept of isospin is paradoxical. Thank you for reinforcing my argument, dear Bm gub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.61.100 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 April 2008

I suspect the above editor may be the same as 189.48.110.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is also on the same Brazilian ISP as the page creator; see [75]. Bm gub (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon appears to be unfamiliar with isospin and with quarks. Heisenberg's argument was quite correct, and is still taught today; replace the word "isospin" with the word "up-ness" (see Isospin#Relationship_to_flavour) to replace Heisenberg's language with quark language. Bm gub (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MightWarrior wrote: I suspect the above editor may be the same as 189.48.110.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

A suspicion is not an argument. A discussion must be supported by reasonable arguments, and not by suspicions without connection with the matter under discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.109.27 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 April 2008

Sockpuppet One of the IPs used here (contribs) previously appeared at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_Ring_Theory identifying himself as W. Guglinski, sole author of the theory Bm gub (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MightWarrior wrote: The anon appears to be unfamiliar with isospin and with quarks. Heisenberg's argument was quite correct, and is still taught today;

MightWarrior shows to be unfamiliar with the causality princile: any physical effect requires a PHYSICAL CAUSE. As said in Causality (physics) : "Despite these subtleties, causality remains an important and valid concept in physical theories. For example, the notion that events can be ordered into causes and effects is necessary to prevent causality paradoxes "

There is not a physical cause in Heisenberg's isospin: it’s a pure mathematical concept, and therefore it cannot be the cause of a physical phenomenon. It only describes the phenomenon, but it is not its cause. The fact that the isospin is taught today does not mean that Heisenberg's solution is agree to the causality principle. When Heisenberg proposed the isospin, the concept was used for explaining why there no exist nucleons like the dineutron. So, the isospin was pointed out by Heisenberg as the CAUSE why the dineutron does not exist. The relationship to flavor is a new attempt of the theorists, trying to bring back the causality to Heisenberg’s isospin.

The fact that today the theorists try to improve Heisenberg’s isospin does not eliminate the original paradox existing in his proposal. Actually such new attempt of the theorists reinforces the existence of the original paradox, since as they are proposing a new explanation implies that they recognize the original paradox in Heisenberg’s proposal (because they fell the need to bring back the causality to physics, which is missing in Heisenberg’s solution).

Keep Bm gub wrote: Sockpuppet One of the IPs used here (contribs) previously appeared at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_Ring_Theory identifying himself as W. Guglinski, sole author of the theory Bm gub (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Such argument makes no sense. Heisenberg's paradox has not connection with Quantum Ring Theory. Heisenberg's paradox is a violation of the causality principle. Heisenberg's paradox is not pointed out by Quantum Ring Theory, actually it is pointed by the following fact: it violates a fundamental principle of Physics— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.232.131 (talk)

Perhaps you don't understand that each editor only get's one vote. You cannot base a "keep" argument soley with the rebuttal of an accusation of sockpuppetry. Further, there seems to be an extremely common theme of grammatical errors and overusage of formatting in both the original form of the article and many of these "keep" votes. Generally anonymous votes are viewed with less weight or totally ignored by admins in determing concensus for AfD anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is titled in such a way as to seem that there is a known named concept called "Heisenberg's paradox", however, such does not appear to be the case. While I don't doubt that heisenberg has raised many paradoxical topics, naming it in this manner can be considered WP:OR. The article reads like a school essay. Because the article does not have a proper lead section, I am unable to improve it's content (beyond wikifying, and fixes to spelling and grammar). The topic fails Notability, it does not make a strong effort to define it's scope. Even with serious improvements, I cannot see any way this fits into Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the arguments used are based on personal suppositions. Verdatum says "in such a way as to seem that" , and "such does not appear to be", and ""While I don't doubt", and "The article reads like", "and I cannot see any way".

And Verdatum defends to delete the article because he is unable to improve it. It's rather a confission of a personal inability than a reasonable argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just once I'd like you to actually sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. And again, don't write "Keep" with every comment, each editor only gets one vote in an AfD. My argument is written in consideration of the failibility principle. I believe that no one can reasonably improve this article because it is written about a non-notable topic that is not even clearly defined. -Verdatum (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly original "research". Klausness (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, to give it a charitable designation. DGG (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the anon is indeed User talk:W.GUGLINSKI, as he appears to be (same content, link to W.G.'s book, same AfD arguments) then he is evading an indefinite block; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#User:W.GUGLINSKI. Ugh. Bm gub (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument WP:OR has been exhausted by many who claim the same thing everytime. Please say something different.

It has been proved, by 2+2=4, that the article is not OR. But of course that it's easy for the opposers to claim that it's OR, because they say it without exhibiting arguments. Someone can claim everything he wishes, trying to convince everybody that 2+2=5. However it's a mere opinion, not supported by any strong argument. And the aim of the discussion is not to exhibit PERSONAL OPINIONS. The aim of the discussion is to exhibit REASONABLE ARGUMENTS.

So, as already has been proved, it's not an original research, since it's not a theory, it's not a research, etc. The article calls attention to a fact well-know by many people: that Heisenberg's isospin violates a fundamental principle of Physics, the causality. Even the own Heisenberg confesses in his book that many physicists sent him letters, telling him that his method of research brought disorder to Physics (page 99 of the book Unification of Fundamental Forces, written by A. Salam, P. Dirac, and W. Heisenberg). So, the own Heisenberg confessed that the strangeness of his scientific criterion was notable among the theorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Kindly stop using sockpuppets to cast !votes, and instead, add some reliable sources to back up the claims. If it's really so obvious, someone else must've also seen it, or it is in fact original research. nneonneo ^talk 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is clearly OR and nonsense too. --Bduke (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bduke said: ...and nonsense too

Dear Bduke, you must prove what you say. It's easy to claim that somebody says nonsense. Look, for example I can write: "Bduke says nosenses". But I would have to prove that you say nonsenses. Dont you think so?

And again, the first rule to discuss AfD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.63.4 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well have got used to reading some lame stuff in Afd's. People use google and stop when they can't find anything and believe it's a hoax or OR. In this case is just they are searching for the wrong term. Search for 'Heisenberg paradox' Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, loads of stuff even describing it as "famous". Doesn't speak well for wikipedia that such thing happen so often. If wiki is to be taken seriously in science and other specialist areas topics such as this want to be top notch. FA quality documents. SunCreator (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, those search results refer to (a) "Schrodinger's Cat", (b) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, not to the content of this article. Bm gub (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be the same to me, although this is not an area I'm an expert in. I will do some checking tomorrow. One question is "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" commonly referred to as "Heisenberg paradox"? SunCreator (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Even to a non-expert, the fact that the sixth Google hit is this very 24-hour-old orphan WP article should tell you that. Anyway, this article has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle; instead it makes a nonsensical objection to isospin symmetry. Bm gub (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No? I thought you would of said yes. So those science books refer to what then? What are they talking about when they refer to 'Heisenberg paradox' in terms of quantum physics? SunCreator (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Schroedinger's Cat, a thought experiment where a cat is placed in the seemingly paradoxical state of being both dead and alive, simultaneously. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may also be referred to as Heisenberg's paradox (though I have not seen it named as such), and which one of these is meant is usually clear from context. Neither of these are what is mentioned in this article. nneonneo ^talk 03:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"these science books?" I see seven Google Scholar hits, five in econ/poli sci and two in philosophy of science; two Google Books hits, one in religion and one in poli sci. I stand by my "no", the article title is not a common term. Bm gub (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look what has been said in the begginning of this discussion, concerning the present article: "It's merely a report on a well-known fact: that Heisenberb introduced several paradoxes in physics" . So, there are several paradoxes introduced in Physics, because Heisenberg used to state things disproved by experiments, as the case of the electron's trajectory within the chamber fog. The own Heisenberg confessed that his method introduced controversy in the theoretical research, as he tell us in his book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.63.4 (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cross Posted from the other two afds Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point. The WP:OR policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them. It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity. It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia. So, even though the proof that (for example) e is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source. The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not. Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically. You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments. Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research. You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data. For one, that isn't strictly true. For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research. I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear. If I need to be even more elementary, let me. the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms. The research is the revelation of that result to the world. Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it. The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first. Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article. Until then, no dice. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I'm sure many have noticed, all of the ISPs arguing to "keep" on this page are single purpose ISPs whose only edits have been to post to this and related AfD's and as such can be disregarded. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User with IP address, please provide ISBN number of the book(s) and precise page(s) where claim has been made. One needs to check these books in the library. It is entirely possible that the claims have been made in old book(s), but they can not be found in the internet. Strictly speking, we should follow WP:AGF. If this user provides direct citation with pages, we should believe him unless someone goes in libary and discovers that there is no such source. But the article is terrible. Biophys (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the article creator has been blocked as a sock of W. GUGLINSKI, who engaged in the same kind of behavior; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#W.GUGLINSKI_again. sho y 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close: Article speedily deleted per CSD G5: page created by a banned user in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others. nneonneo ^talk 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Ohnoitsjamie, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditchbogganing[edit]

Nonnotable "sport". Google shows five myspace videos and nothing else. Probably neologism, unreferenced. Tan | 39 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no references other than two MySpace videos (the five Google hits all point to the same two videos). nneonneo ^talk 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been speedily deleted. nneonneo ^talk 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as duplicate of properly named article. Pastordavid (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears Song[edit]

Incorrect title naming scheme, no content, release(d) date July 2008, citing WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no actual content whatsoever. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, possibly speedy. Brilliantine (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already a page that exists (about that song) Radar (Britney Spears song). And it says on that page it's "rumoured" to be coming out. Ones enough Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of content Udonknome (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL song is not notable yet, lack of confirmed information, and not useful as a redirect. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous comments. Recreate with proper title if/when it's possible to write a good article about the song. Aleta ^Sing 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect.--Berig (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... redirect to what? "Song" is not the song title. I don't see what this can redirect to. Any suggestions? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fattyjwoods says above that the article is a duplicate of Radar (Britney Spears song). If this is correct, the present article could be redirected there.--Berig (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. There are dozens (sadly) of Britney Spears songs, so redirecting "Britney Spears Song" to just one of them wouldn't be very good. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I care much whether it is redirected or deleted, but it could be redirected to Britney Spears.--Berig (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What an odd idea to redirect it. There is no there, there. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if it's that odd, I strike my suggestion.--Berig (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw this article created while I was on Huggle yesterday, and I considered tagging it for CSD; I do not think if it qualified under CSD A7, but I definitely think that the article should be removed until some more concrete info comes out. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No question about it Delete, no encyclopedic content and wrong title. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already an article about the album. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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