Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

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. Spebi 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyee Sports Council

This is a declined speedy. I'm not sure if it meets WP:N, but I'm putting it out here for y'all to decide. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no notability here. The references are passing mentions in lists of awards various organisations have handed out, bar one, which appears to be the official website. — BillC ^talk 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of importance here that had me originally request a speedy. --Stormbay (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Washington. There is a section for "Athletics and traditions" which is an obvious spot for merging. There is insufficient coverage from reliable sources about the subject for an independent article, but the minimal coverage in the Seattle Times would suggest that the awards do carry some local notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of notability. MSGJ (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Daughters of the American Revolution Nakon 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DAR Award

Delete unsourced article about a nn award Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It may be presently unsourced, but it is sourceable. A Google News search [1] shows over 1800 articles in newspapers dating back to at least 1931 documenting how some student, reporter, veteran, or official received an award from the Daughters of the American Revolution. I give it only a weak "keep" because the articles are about the giving of the award to some individual, rather than being about the award as such. Local papers routinely run an article when someone wins any such award. It does show a widespread coverage over many decades. An alternative would be to expand it a bit (there appear to be awards for more than history) and to merge it to the article about the DAR. Edison (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daughters of the American Revolution. There is actually more information and context in the main article than in this one line stub so there is nothing to merge. There is ample room for expansion in the main article, and if the section grows, then I would support a split of the section to a stand-alone article then. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. No need for an AfD. Pburka (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pole-yo

Contested notability, as well as the issue of us not beign a guide. Placed a prod earlier, but someone wanted to take it to AfD instead. Glacier Wolf (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unsourced how-to guide, even if by some chance notability was established the article would need a substantial rewrite to stay on Wikipedia.--The Dominator (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki is not a how-to. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely no reliable sources found in searching. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MADEUP Nanonic (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold's Wrecking Co.

Article declares that the film is not notable. The only claim is that it was Steven E. de Souza's first picture. Delete or merge with Steven E. de Souza. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article meets core policies. Catchpole (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a stub, but it's worthwhile to keep it. It charts the beginning of both Steven E. de Souza and Scott Kauffman.Dkkicks (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NF criteria, as is stated in the article itself. Teleomatic (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was reviewing this for closure, but concensus has not been demonstrated. In order for this article to be deleted under the criteria of the nom, somebody will have to say "I looked for additional sources, but they have not been found". The keep votes should cite a policy and state why the article meets it. (They can even cheat and improve the article, to help it meet those polcies.) It is not helpful to say keep - meets core policies... which ones? How so? It's not helpful to say "keep (and here's why I like it so much)." I am relisting it in hopes that within another 5 days it gets more and better participation. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ok I did a cheat by adding ref to New York Times article and I see this film is covered at the Internet Movie Database which is a listed resource at WP:NF so passes easy IMO. The point Dkkicks makes above also adds to the notability of this film. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improving an article isn't cheating. Good work on finding the NY Times review. There is also an LA Times review behind a pay wall. There are sufficient reliable sources in the form of reviews from major dailies to satisfy notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David shea

Actor. The assertion of notability is "Best known for his role in the Dewmay production of Elements (currently in post-production),". Being most notable for something that isn't yet released is not usualy very notable. In this case I can't find anything that can make this comply to WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the "notability" guidelines, (and they are just that, guidelines not rules) it states importance. I feel Mr. Shea should have an article because, although he is not well known yet, when this movie comes out, he will be. By that time, someone else will have made a page for him, and I like to feel I've done my part to help the rising stars from my hometown. From the buzz Ive been hearing, this movie, Elements, is slated to be released in local theaters in March, and the Sci-Fi channel is already in discussions to purchase it. Nor will this be the last time we hear of Mr. Shea. I've seen him perform on stage and hes quite gifted. However, I did not include any of this information in the bio because I felt I should stick to proven facts so far. Trust me, within the next year, Mr. Shea WILL be considered notable, I just want to get the jump on creating the bio.

Kodemunky (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very forward looking statements violating WP:CRYSTAL. I can find no press coverage for David Shea. His IMDB entry shows only two acting roles that are both un-named bit parts. There is no entry for the movie Elements, and in fact, I cannot even find the movie on IMDB, or any press coverage for it. There are no reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know what, fine. If it makes all the cyber-geeks feel better about themselves by playing God and being able to delete people they deem "unworthy", then go have your fun. Let the real people do the real work.

Kodemunky (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "although he is not well known yet, when this movie comes out, he will be. By that time, someone else will have made a page for him, and I like to feel I've done my part to help the rising stars from my hometown." That's exactly the point. When he becomes well-known, then he gets a page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kodemunky, please understand this is not personal to you or Mr. Shea, but there are a set of criteria (WP:BIO) that someone needs to meet before having an article listed on Wikipedia. Once he meets it, by all means, recreate the article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; once he's proved this great gift of talent and is recognized by reviewers then please feel free to recreate. In the mean time, try to avoid insulting other users; realize that this isn't a personal issue, but rather an issue of policy. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Boy

Hoax: non-existent film, attack page — BillC ^talk 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Spy Boy 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please speedy close as keep: apparently it is a real film: content had been turned into a hoax/attack page. Reverted to earlier version. — BillC ^talk 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although a number of arguments were advanced about sources, none of them covered this company in a way that satisfies the guideline for corporate notability. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegro Realty Advisors

Lack of notability (not even asserted). Lack of interest in growing article beyond stub since 2006. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some articles from a magazine and from a newspaper which mention the company as a real-estate consulting firm. --Eastmain (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found to show notability. In a quick google search I didn't find any but perhaps they exist. The problem with the articles is that they are about commercial real estate deals -- the day in / day out news of a typical local business journal -- and they mention only in passing that Allegro represented one of the parties. Using that standard every single commercial real estate service would be notable. They just aren't substantive mentions. What would be needed is a news article about the realty office or something extraordinary or noteworthy that it did. Or some other indication that the firm is particularly important, worth knowing about, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, at least two of the references were only tangential mentions, and it appears to be nothing more than advertising. Dchall1 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally inserted this article because this “small business” actively provides services in every U.S. state and internationally each year. The references that have recently been added help; however, they do not tell the full story about how this company serves and influences clients on a global scale, including many Fortune 1000 companies, like-sized privately held companies, and government agencies from NASA and DFAS to counties and municipalities. While each real estate project may not be notable, the company’s geographic coverage rivals large publicly traded companies in their industry (many of whom are notable enough to have stubs in Wikipedia). To prove this notability, one may have to add a ton of references to project articles, state by state (e.g., see RE Business Online which includes a handful of regional editions). Also, the executives of this company have often been interviewed as experts in global, regional and local publications on issues within their industry (e.g., see Urban Land, Site Selection, Corporate Real Estate Executive, Shopping Center News, Heartland Business Real Estate…) and beyond, such as running small businesses (e.g., see Crain’s Cleveland Business, a number of other US market business publications, Inside Business, Smart Business News, Small Business Advocate radio show, Cleveland Plain Dealer, various Sun Press publications, Administaff radio commercials, etc.). I’ll try to spend some time beefing up the article, because I think it would be a mistake (with bias to large corporations) to eliminate Allegro Realty Advisors without cutting out most other global companies in the industry. Mayor Pez (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mayor Pez removed the AFD notice from the article on January 14. I relisted the article on January 17. - KrakatoaKatie 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There is coverage, but it's brief and comes really from just one source, "Crain's Cleveland Business" which is a local business magazine. For a global consultancy with notability, I would expect more coverage than a couple of articles ina local business magazine. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article simply does not assert notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I extended the search beyond Google and found many objective secondary sources with broader coverage than commercial real estate deals (which themselves appear to be far flung across the U.S.). Also, some of these sources demonstrated the notability of this company among its peers in the industry. The company appears to be noted for its pioneering business structure and fee methods as compared to conventional real estate brokerage firms. Also, Companies WikiProject rated the article as of "high-importance".76.241.129.121 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 76.241.129.121 is a WP:SPA having only edits about Allegro Realty Advisors Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Metropolitan Atlanta Transit

Non-existent agency or proposal; zero active Google hits. Probable hoax. AUTiger » talk 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. You would think that a transit system for a major American city would have more than one Google hit. [2].Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. The single Ghit is 404. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Wryspy (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-government funded transit authorities do not have to provide information to the press when in the proposal state. And when the transit system is ready to open the only party they must notify is the Georgia Public Service Commission for a business hearing. The company is only in the stages of development. Meaning there is no need to notify anyone whatsoever. 74.184.25.236 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although by simple count, the comments are only slightly in favour of keeping, I find the arguments that the subject has pioneered a notable area persuasive of meeting WP:PROF, while the third party articles cited are adequate for verifiability. The several delete arguments that hinge around coatracking, original research or pseudoscience do not seem well founded. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tajmar

Not a notable personage per WP:PROF. Looks like soapboxing and coatracks for fringe theories as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, mentioned in New Scientist and by ESA for finding an anamoly. The article should state that verifications are uncertain. The article already helped me figure out the state of the issue and helped me figure out that a lot of people were stupid because they thought he made a gravitation field. Well sourced article, and gives depth that other articles can't give. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep According to web of science, 23 articles , but none cited morethan nine times. (Tajmar M, Wang J "Three-dimensional numerical simulation of field-emission-electric-propulsion neutralization" JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER 16 (3): 536-544 MAY-JUN 2000 Times Cited: 9) Clearly not yet notable as a scientist. Probably ~~not certain whethe~~r he might be as an engineer.DGG (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is incorrect on both counts. 1. As the discoverer of a new effect, the subject easily meets criterion 5 of WP:PROF, and the effect has been discussed and researched by independent researchers (e.g. the U. of Canterbury group). 2. However closely I read the article, I fail to see any evidence of "fringe" science--this is a reputable mainstream scientist doing grant-funded research for a respectable international body (the ESA). It seems like the nominator strung together several loaded phrases ("coatracking", "fringe theory", etc.) without really understanding what they refer to. There is no evidence of coatracking, etc. within the article. Freederick (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, characterizing this person as a discoverer of a new effect is really reaching. Where's his prominence? Where are the accolades for his amazing discovery? Where's the Nobel Prize? Now, it may turn out this guy's on to something (I doubt it, but I'll keep an open mind). However, he hasn't been very convincing yet. No one except the increasingly disappointing New Scientist seems to take notice. Secondly, ESA gave him a grant. So what? Space agencies have wide latitude to give grants to all kinds of people and they frequently do. If we had an article on every person who received a grant from a space agency, WP:PROF would be thrown out the window! Also, whenever Heim theory gets mentioned red flags need to be raised high. I think a lot of the chacterizations being made by Freederick are pretty far off the mark. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all advances in science are "amazing" and end up on the evening news. Are you actually so naive as to think that public accolades are the touchstone of a scientific discovery, or are you just putting a spin on things? Also, I don't understand your remarks about Heim theory. Would you care to elaborate? Freederick (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heim theory has been criticized as pseudoscience. Public accolades are part of what can conceivably make someone notable who is a (pseudo)scientist. Likewise, scientific recognition. However, this person has received neither. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You do realize that "has been criticized" is a classic example of weasel wording, right?

2. The article on Heim theory has been through several AfD's itself, with a Keep result.

3. Heim theory gets one mention at the bottom of the Tajmar article. If it's HT that you have a quarrel with, I won't object if you remove that mention, and leave the Tajmar article out of it. AFAIK, Tajmar's research is not grounded in HT, and the claimed connection is tenuous at best. Freederick (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I removed the sentence linking to HT from the article. Freederick (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability since no biographical sources are presented that discuss Martin Tajmar, the subject of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Biographical sources? Gimme a break. This is a scientist, not a pop star: his academic work is what is relevant, and that is referenced in the article. WP:PROF applies, rather than WP:BIO. But even WP:BIO says nothing about "biographical" sources being necessary. On the contrary, it says: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Sort of fits the bill, doesn't it? Freederick (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "biographical" I mean independent sources that discuss him as a person and assess his personal accomplishments relative to that of other scientists. His academic papers themselves do not establish notability, we need sources that were written by somebody else. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relistsed to generate consensus ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This had already been closed but been relisted by the nominator with the original closer's consent. I just corrected the log. Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coatrack, not a professor. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability for a biographical article not established. Consider mention on Frame-dragging. People who write a notable paper get their paper cited on Wikipedia, they do not automatically get a full biography. dab (𒁳) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - seems on the edge of notability for keeping, so I usually recomment to keep. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has written a textbook published by an academic press, published many articles in highly reputable journals. Anthon01 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content may or may not be notable, but subject himself seems to fairly clearly fail to meet the standards of personal notability. Sourced, notable content could perhaps be placed in a different article. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article himself does not appear to be notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many independent sources are given to show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, especially with regards to the New Scientist article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I never heard of this and have no opinion, but I found two bits of information.

1. Deutschlandfunk (if you are in the US, it's like NPR) visited his laboratory in November 2006. What he said sounds impressive, and the way he said it does not sound like the usual fringe stuff to me. (I only read the transcript.) Here is a translation of something he says:

"If someone finds that there is another translation for my effect, it's all right with me as well. Now I don't insist that I have created a gravitation field. I think it's the most likely explanation. If it's something else, then it's something else. In any case: I don't think that so far anybody has done something else where a laser gyro thinks it's rotating even though it's firmly attached to the ceiling. Now that's at least a curiosity that is worth being examined further."

2. I am unfamiliar with the German language Wikipedia, and it seems to be a few years behind. In any case I found a relevant discussion (in German) there in the physics project, in which people were very critical of Martin Tajmar. I have invited Ben-Oni to take part in this discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment On the grounds of notability, the article about the person has more significance, IMO, if he is the sole source for something else which is notable. So maybe the guy has only done one thing, but if that thing is notable enough for an article, then an item for it's author makes sense to me. That said, I agree with Hans that more could be done to assess the notability of the item (an apparent electromagnetically induced gravitational effect?) itself. There is honest work being done in Unification; so I'll drop a note at the Lisi talk page, where all the bravest mathematical physicists hang out, and some cowardly mathematicians lurk :-) Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this work does not involve unification, or any electromagnetic connection to gravitation. The theory is only formulated using gravitomagnetism which is a convenient set of formal analogies between electromagnetism and gravitation. It aims to explain observations of the mass of paired electrons in a particular superconductor, the physics of the electrical properties of electrons and superconductors does not really enter into it. The theory was really quite a long shot, and the evidence seems to show it incorrect. Still, correctness is not a criteria for a theory being in wikipedia, only notability. Rgraham_nz (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just passes over the threshold, I'd say, based on whats there now and the analysis here. Since he's that close, which is enough to be a minor, quiet article, there is no reason to assume it won't simply expand further. Or stay this size. Either way is fine, but deletion would be premature. Lawrence § t/e 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF, greater than average prof. Philosophically, I support academics somewhat notable in their field, however narrow their field is. Tparameter (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment. It sounds like ScienceApologist thinks the guy is a kook. I could defer to his expertise if a case is made that this is a fringe loon or something, then change my vote. I'm not familiar with the guy's work. Tparameter (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain The article is very poorly sourced, but if better sources exist and can be added, I have no real problem with it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name has got some recognition by good PR, e.g. by his attempts to let his fringe research appear more linked to ESA than it was. Judging by the usual standard in academics and physics, he clearly doesn't take the notability threshold. Borderline case, tending to delete, to not honour this sort of making oneself appear more important. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment While this discussion is going on, PouponOnToast has been repeatedly blanking large portions of the page in question, including ~~the references section~~ some relevant references. He has persisted in this borderline vandalism despite being asked to refrain until the AfD is closed. While such actions would be obnoxious enough under ordinary circumstances, they are particularly pernicious while an AfD is in progress. Please desist. Freederick (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment My goal is to remove the coatrack from the article, nothing more. I have not blanked the references section. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not believe that the section in question qualifies as a coatrack according to wikipedias guidelines. It presents a non-biased overview of his research and does not mislead the reader. That a large fraction of the content of the page relates to this particular work does not constitute a coatrack. In my opinion replacing the section with simply the comment 'The effect has not yet been observed independently' is very misleading to the reader since the effect (at least according to his original theory) has been shown to not exist by an independent group and this has been accepted for publication in a peer review journal.

I have followed this research and read the relevant papers; while the evidence does not support this theory it is still legitimate science and should be retained by wikipedia. However it may be that this (biography) page is not the best place for the details of his work, I propose either:

The content relating to gravitomagnetism and superconductors be restored
The content be moved to a separate page, just about this theory

My opinion is that the first option is the best option at this time ... if other researches become significantly involved in this research at a later time then the second option may be best. Please post your opinion. Rgraham_nz (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Pending more sources and per Wikipedia:PROF. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think he is a kook (well, no more than is the norm for Breakthrough Propulsion), but he is not even close to meeting WP:PROF. There are an almost limitless number of people with tweaks to BCS or GR or whatever, WP:BALL says we wait until one of them generates significant independent coverage for being right or they become notable for some other reason. Eldereft (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonable to include this sort of thing, people will likely be searching for details. MilesAgain (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although the article should make it clear that the data has been not confirmed, and the theory not accepted. This is one ofthe exceptional cases where proposing something that turns out to be wrong is still notable. DGG (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete non-notable even for psuedoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:PROF, article seems to be about his alleged discovery, rather than about him, material might be appropriate under some other title. But as written the article isn't a biography. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, original research. He may have been mentioned in magazine on science, but so are a lot of non-notable fringe theorists. The article as it is, is ridiculously technical and invokes concepts that aren't explained on outside articles, making it unencyclopedic, since an encyclopedia is designed for a general audience -- which isn't going to be the same, for instance, as the same audience that might read magazines on science. And significance in academia does not equate with encyclopedic notability. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his research was sufficiently notable that another group ran their own test of his theory. The article content appears to be verifiable. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find the debate here amusing, especially the folks who call research in this area pseudoscience. But then again, you might be right. The folks at Skunkworks are known for their lack of intelligence. Tajmar's work is groundbreaking, and he is running into the same institutionalized resistance that others like him have in the past. That is the only reason some of you would like to delete his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm2 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dawg

Fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources in article (source given is a social networking site). Gsearch for "Jim Dawg" + rap or rapper does not come up with sources demonstrating notability -- someone who had their biggest selling EP in 2002 should be coming up with ghits if notable. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I see this has been through AfD before, with the same problems. Could also be eligible for speedy as recreation of deleted material; salting may be something to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrictramp (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete this spammy puffery. Springnuts (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see the previous version, but of course G4 may apply as well if this version is largely identical to that one. JavaTenor (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Does appear to be nearly word-for-word of the deleted page, created by the same user who created it. DMacks (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fry this spam in a skillet. Wryspy (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, hoax. KrakatoaKatie 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aliy alomaniy

The PROD rationale read like this:

Hoax article - no such player exists (see Google [3]) & the external links actually refer to the real-life player Armand Traore. Username of creator suggests Conflict of Interest.

The article was also tagged {{hoax}} and {{coi}}, but those tags were removed by the creator as well.

Delete as nom. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as total hoax. Note: I was originator of the prod. Qwghlm (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. References in article are actually connected to different Arsenal players; for example, some are taken straight from the Theo Walcott article. No ghits, etc etc. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - completely non-notable individual and highly unlikely that the subject can be verified in any way. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as WP:HOAX. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northside Cash Money Entertainment

No support for notability; potential hoax; only google hit is a myspace page. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~WP:HOAX~~. Non-notable. Springnuts (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let me change the article and put some extra stuff(Juanhernandez59 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- This AfD runs for about 5 days, so you have plenty of time to find some reliable sources to support the notability of this label. DMacks (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 Days tomorrow i am gonna go to Mexico to vist my parents and ima come back in 2 weeks.(Juanhernandez59 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Apparently the page creator removed the blurb about being an imprint of Universal Records since the article began to receive scrutiny. And really, evidence that the company exists should take less an a few minutes...ie, posting a press release or something. Suspicious. hateless 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on i dont understand what he said(Juanhernandez59 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There thats all i could do for right now please tell me if that is enough so i could make more changes(Juanhernandez59 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, WP:RS, and WP:V. It may be a real label, but it is just is not big enough or notable enough for English Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Wryspy (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only results from search are this wiki article and a myspace page. No reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Henchcliffe

Contested prod. Football (soccer) player who has never played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:BIO. Qwghlm (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No question. Non-notable, never played in the Football League so fails WP:BIO. And unsourced to boot. Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. I would also suggest adding fellow Tamworth players:
- Alex Cisak
- Leigh Walker

to the nomination, as they both fail for the same reason (Walker played for Scarborough after they were relegated to the Conference). Someone needs to get rid of the redlinks on the template of all the players who fail to meet the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- NB Leigh Walker played in the FA Cup against Chelsea which I think passes the notability criteria. Though I agree Alex Cisak probably could be prodded/AFDed. Peanut4 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wryspy (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g11 advertising (written in first person). NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willamette Valley Hospice

Non-notable company. No secondary sources found to establish notability. No claim to notability other than being the oldest hospice in Salem, Oregon. Fails WP:CORP. Redfarmer (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for non notability and WP:SNOW. Springnuts (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not sure about the speedy criterion. Trivial coverage is still coverage. Wryspy (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA Sim Racing

Contested PROD. Racing game under development whose notability is not established. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SCAM. No reliable secondary sources. Reads like an ad. Release Date always pushed back. Especially now they have your money from preorders. With Comments like this comming from the guys who are creating the game, really shows how unprofessinal they really are.

"Bear with us as we are doing this for you...not to steal your money like 2003 and NSR did with a sim that drives nothing at all like a real cup car does."

--ElliottFan9 (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased account. Please read all the comments before posting because your comment was already addressed: "It doesn't reads like an ad. It reads like any other non released game would. The vocabulary used is clearly informational. Not self-promoting (i.e. "this is an awesome game") or comparative (i.e. "ASR is better than this game")." Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball:WP: Crystal Ball. Please remove all speculation and personal bias you have with the game. Unless you can effectively alter your comment, your notion will not be taken seriously. Also, the Michael McDowell NRT and SRT are third party resources that satisfy the requirements--LizardPariah (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-ordering is currently available. Sim Factory will host a lottery where a winner will be drawn from a list of people who pre-ordered the game. The winner of the lottery will receive a Logitech G25 steering wheel combo cockpit package worth around $2599.00" That's an ad like it or not. My opinion was unbiased and who are you to tell people what to write?ElliottFan9 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Those who pre-purchased via this method received a 10% discount on the purchase and were able to play in the Team Fortress 2 beta starting on Monday, September 17, 2007." That was directly taken from the Orange Box article. There are millions of game articles with promotional information. That doesn't directly automatically make the article an ad. The language of an article (read above statements) will determine if it becomes an ad, not the content itself. But since you are so adamant on it I'll set aside an individual "promotional" section just as games like Orange Box does. "Release Date always pushed back. Especially now they have your money from preorders. With Comments like this comming from the guys who are creating the game, really shows how unprofessinal they really are." That is blatantly biased and opinion orientated. Unless you yourself are a developer of the game, that statement above will be rendered as a biased account. And addressing that comment directly. Let me give you a case study: the game Huxley was delayed multiple times (to a total of 2 years) and is still delayed. But that doesn't make Huxley any less worthy of an article than Halo does it. You also called ASR a "scam" besides the fact that the only support you have offered to that statement is: "it's delayed and the devs seem unprofessional". Just because a game is delayed doesn't mean it's a scam. Jumpgate Evolution, Huxley and Perfect World are wonderful examples. I'm not telling you what to write. You can write whatever you want. I'm asking you to give a fair vote based on facts rather than whatever preconceived notions you many have about the game or its developers.--LizardPariah (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notability is established through the interview with Michael McDowell who is completely unrelated to the project and is an professional ARCA racecar driver. It is also established in the Sim Racing Tonight--LizardPariah (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, the game is currently being "worked on" and will never be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingtable (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are a developer yourself you CANNOT say that. This is only speculation. Also, Huxley is also heavily delayed (and STILL delayed) but it has an article. Just because a game is in development doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. There are millions of articles with games that are in development--LizardPariah (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming. Complaint filed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSF Zippy (talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notability is established by the sources provided. I'd like to see some broader sources, maybe some outside of the ARCA community, but the article is good for now. I'm sure more will come out as the release approaches. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that are outside of the ARCA community. Like the SRT and NRT Servers sources.--66.91.35.124 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable game. No reliable secondary sources. Not a one. An ARCA game? Seriously...? --Smashville^BONK! 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established through the interview with Michael McDowell who is completely unrelated to the project and is an professional ARCA racecar driver. It is also established in the Sim Racing Tonight. Both sources satisfy the reliable third party requirements.--LizardPariah (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also established in the Sim Racing Tonight" Michael McDowell is no where to be found on that site.ElliottFan9 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is two separate sources. Since these two third party resources are obviously unrelated (or else they would not be called "reliable third party resources") it would be logical that both Michael McDowell or Sim Racing Tonight will not reference each other--LizardPariah (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, unreleased game. Reads like an ad. Pburka (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't reads like an ad. It reads like any other non released game would. The vocabulary used is clearly informational. Not self-promoting (i.e. "this is an awesome game") or comparative (i.e. "ASR is better than this game").--66.91.35.124 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There aren't many notable third party resources, but that doesn't mean the article's notability isn't established. Most of the information is from the main site, yes, but there's 2 that is are from third party resources, which qualifies the article as notable.--66.91.35.124 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added another reliable third party resource. Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s interview on the software. That's THREE reliable third party resources that establishes the article as notable.--LizardPariah (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V. There are still no reliable secondary sources in this article. --Smashville^BONK! 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are the other sources not reliable? The NRT Server source and the two professional racecar interview should satisfy the criteria. Anyway, SpeedTV is a reliable third party source with a good strong reputation: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/arca-sim-racing-featured-on-speedtv/4043855253. I'm adding this now, this should prove the article's notability if the other three doesn't.--LizardPariah (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing verifiability with notability. These sources indicate that the game really is in production. They don't provide any indication of its notability. Unpublished games need to meet a very high standard to be considered notable. Duke Nukem Forever is notable -- it's received tons of press despite the very real possibility that it will never actually ship. This game just isn't notable -- yet. Once the game is published and there are some reviews, etc., the article will be welcomed back. Pburka (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed because the previous AfD was closed yesterday. Open a merge discussion, and if that is fruitless pursue a new AfD then. ^Avruchtalk 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towel-Headed Man

It's a little unusual to nominate an article agian so soon after the first AFD closes, but based on the closing admin's comments I think it's reasonable. The first AFD closed as no consensus, with the admin finding it close between the choices of deleting or merging to another article. With that in mind, let's try to determine with more clarity whether the article should be deleted or merged, and if merged to what target. I still believe that the article should be deleted for failing WP:NOT#PLOT but have no objection should a merge target emerge as a preference. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close procedural vote, as we just discussed this. And you nominated it last time. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um yeah, I think I explained why I nominated it again. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge doesn't require an AfD. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. However, in the wake of an AFD where opinion is split between deleting outright and merging with multiple articles suggested as targets, a merge is controversial. Do you think, if I merged and redirected the article to any other article, that it wouldn't draw objections? Otto4711 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Speedy close. If there was no consensus yesterday to delete, there won't be any today. Discussing the target of a merger is a discussion that does not require an AfD. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the last discussion closed with the discussion split between delete and merge. The closing admin should really have relisted it for further discussion. As also noted, the second nomination was not made with the goal of consolidating opinion behind any particular option. Rather than being a bureaucrat, maybe you could address the issues of the nomination? Just a thought. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here is the issue that matters in the nomination. The previous discussion closed yesterday with no consensus to delete. Since deletion is no longer an option, this being a deletion discussion, it should be closed immediately. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is no longer an option? Bullshit. A no consensus close does not remove any option from the table. I can't you seem more interested in being a bureaucrat than in discussing the actual issues. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale for renomination should be taken to WP:DRV, not here. What makes you think a no consensus decision can be tipped one way or the other so quickly? Furthermore, if this nomination results in a speedy keep-too quick, then chances are that all subsequent nominations will be quicly closed as being done in bad faith with complete disregard for the nominator's rationale. I strongly urge you to withdraw the nomination and wait at least two weeks before renominating. That is, no matter what your rationale for renomination is. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep I mean really, this nomination is clearly an, "I didn't like yesterday's results". If you want to dispute the outcome, take it to WP:DRV instead or waited a couple of weeks before being renominated. --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of god...is there really something so terrible about continuing a discussion that closed inconclusively? Do we really need to go through a week-long DRV regarding this? Is it really more important to be a policy wonk? Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that important to delete this article as quickly as possible, procedure and common sense be damned? --Farix (Talk) 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's a thought: read the actual nomination. The goal here is to come to a decision based on a discussion of the issues, which as I understand AFD is the goal of every nomination. Demanding that the nomination be closed because your sense of process is offended doesn't accomplish that goal. Otto4711 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the renomination that indicates that this AfD needs to be redone so soon after the first. --Farix (Talk) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close I see the point about why to renominate so quickly (so I'm not going to give anyone a hard time about it) - but since the previous nom closed, it gives any concerned editors an opportunity to really bring up the quality before nailed with another deletion nom. Let's give them that opportunity. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overachievement

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the article gives no supporting facts as to why it would be merited, has no sources, and I don't think symmetry could be used as a reason to keep it, so I think it should be deleted. The term also gives relatively few Google hits (about 40k, as opposed to underachievement's 320k). Reinis^talk 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Google Scholar and Google Books results from serious sources in the topics of sociology and psychology are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Article needs sourcing and cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin : The article has no AFD notice, and there are no versions in the history with an AFD notice. This looks like a malformed nom. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed missing notice. AFD should run five days from now. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known term. No reasons for deletion.Biophys (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Dhartung. There's plenty of research into this, and so there is ample room to expand on this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article many moons ago. Just checking in to say that I don't have an opinion either way. Goodralph (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reason as Biophys. --Tikilounge (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalida Azzouza

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

The result was keep. John254 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forex scam

Article is irreparably NPOV, unfairly painting with a too-broad brush one aspect of retail investing. Applicable deletion policies include WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, WP:OPINION and WP:NOT#GUIDE. I suggest it be redirected to Fraud or something similar Ronnotel (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - There should be no question that forex fraud exists and is common. When a Commissioner of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission(CFTC) calls it the "Fraud de jour," the CFTC issues warnings to the public about it, the Wall Street Journal and New York Times write articles about it, it certainly meets the requirements of notability and reliable sources. This is all documented in the lede. Altogether there are 13 references.

Whether the article is NPOV or not is another question. I started the article, forking it off of Foreign exchange market because the debates between some extreme views were about ready to take over that entire article. I've felt like I was in between 2 groups quite often in further editing the article.

BTW, I recognize that Ronnotel has some expertise in financial topics, and I've always considered him to be an excellent editor, indeed I consider him to be my friend. But I think there is no need to delete. To improve - obviously. Smallbones (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is well-referenced and appears to illustrate a legitimate problem. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scam exists. The article is well references. People need to know about this. Frankly, keeping this is a more important service than most of the junk that clutters Wikipedia. Wryspy (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't the best encyclopedia article but it's about as good as a lot of the others in the scam/fraud categories. It has the air of a "how-to" (recognize/report), but that can be fixed. Maybe some of it is a little harsh on what is a voluntary activity akin to online poker. But that's an editing issue. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is notable, and can be sourced, and is in fact sourced. Other issues are content-related and are not reasons for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The article is fair. It warns people of potential difficulties and scams. It does not condemn all FOREX trading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.198.150.244 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I do nor see NPOV problems, unless one thinks that the virtue of stealing should be presented. I suppose if someone has actually said they are a negligible price to pay for the efficient market operation and therefore should not be worried about much, we could add that to the article. the name though is a problem, because it looks at first glance as if it would be about a specific scam, not a class of scams. Perhaps this is an instance where we should make an exception to our rule and use a plural scams. - or the longer Foreign exchange scam even though it's not the colloquial term. DGG (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I am currently assisting an investigation that involves a network of insurance agents and brokers preying on their vulnerable elderly clients, encouraging them to invest all their savings in foreign exchange scams. This one involves moving their funds to a bank in Mexico. Victims are given no paperwork and told not to tell anyone. This topic needs much more attention, not less. I would really suspect the motives of anyone wanting to remove this and wonder if they are part of the illegal side of the foreign exchange trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.192.168 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; An important policy of Wikipedia is to begin with and maintain a presumption of good faith until the evidence very clearly shows otherwise. —SlamDiego_←T 09:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - Article was vandalized with spam and has been reverted (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen Few

Looks like advertising... probably not fit for encyclopedia RT | Talk 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there WAS a valid article here, someone has replaced it entirely with their spam. The appropriate course of action is a revert, not an AfD. Dethme0w (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - all we have to do here is revert the spam/nn content. Dethme0w (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dethme0w (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's now back to the way I created it. Next time please look more carefully, check the article history. Gocsa (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated Mujinga (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all Nakon 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265)

I strongly believe that this controversy should be settled before the article is split. It's hard enough keeping track of the debate as it is, in my opinion. In addition, splitting the article before consensus is reached may result in subpages that contradict each other or place undue emphasis on a particular POV. It's sloppy and makes the encyclopedia look bad. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC) For the same reason, I am nominating these related pages:[reply]

Delete all. These pages were created as POV forks, as an attempt to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance and push a POV about the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance. They should be deleted, and discussions should then continue at the one talkpage, as to how best fix the main article. --El on ka 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Splitting controversial content to multiple pages is a bad idea. There needs to be a consensus at the source article (Franco-Mongol alliance) about how to present this period in an accurate on neutral manner before the content spreads to more articles. WjBscribe 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The disputes must be settled first then subpages may be created. I personally think Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations) ought to be taken out as well. We should make sure, though, that no information has been lost to these subarticles and that it all remains at the main one before they are deleted. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these POV forks. Wryspy (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created after multiple requests from other users (especially Elonka) to split the main article Franco-Mongol alliance. The objective was to reduce the size of the main article, which was about 190k before the split. As the name "Franco-Mongol alliance" for the main page has already been accepted through a formal consensus (see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move), and as the split was specifically requested by other users, accusations of POV fork are quite unfair. PHG (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - One article on Franks and Mongols is probably more than enough. This series constitutes a walled garden of original research. See WP:BALLS. The creation of these article appears to be an attempt at circumventing the consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - splitting the article up in this way is a terrible idea, and implies even more certainty to these supposed "alliances" than the article did before. john k (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lets see if there is a need for an article split AFTER the issue is resolved on the orignal page. Let's try pruning the original article of unneeded information/quotes/etc to get it to a more manageable size first. Plus, keeping the dispute to one page makes it easier for others to follow the discussion, and have input. When the article is split into too many POV forks, some can slip through the cracks. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I gather that the controversy is whether the relationship between the Franks and the Mongols in this period can be properly called an alliance; I do not see how it and the main article differ in POV. They both at present consider the nature ambiguous. There seems to be general agreement that the subject demands separate articles for the different phases, because of the amount of relevant material. There seems to be consensus that more than the original article will be required, and present discussion seems to be about whether these should be deleted first, the main one written appropriately, and separate ones reconstructed, or whether they should be brought in harmony all together. That makes this entirely an editing dispute--we fix articles for POV problems, not delete them, unless it's inherent. I do not see that it is inherent in the subject, though the title may be disputable, in which case its a requested move, not an afd. And deleting these specifically makes no real sense to me, since the same form of the title is used for all. (Personally, I think it is inevitable that in general historians always differ on questions like this, and both contemporary and later writers will describe it in different terms. What the academic status may be of this particular dispute I do not know, nor can i say what the est wording would be). But Biophys and I, as editors previously uninvolved in this, both think these unacceptable deletions. An Rfa on the name would seem the appropriate course. DGG (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, thanks for the comments, let me try and explain. It isn't that this article and the main article differ from POV at the moment, it's that the main article is under dispute for being biased and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Each time consensus has developed at the talkpage to change the article, the main editor, PHG, has responded by either edit-warring, or creating another fork with his version of the biased information. I won't bore you with the historical details of the situation, but it's basically a case of the majority of modern historians saying "A", and a very small minority saying "B", but PHG is trying to create articles that say that the majority opinion is "B", and, oh-yes-there-are-a-few-historians-who-say-"A". As for whether the main article needs to be split or condensed, it most definitely does need to be decreased in size, but there is no consensus for this "by year" split. For a different version that does have consensus, see User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, where instead of splitting into multiple "alliance" articles, the information is instead split into existing articles such as about geographical areas and Mongol leaders. In short, this Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265) article is biased, a violation of WP:UNDUE, and a duplication of biased information that is already in other locations. It should be deleted. --El on ka 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the only proper use for a fork is an article providing detail linked to a more general one by a "main" template. Having two separate articles covering the same ground is bad in principle, because they tend to get altered in differnet ways, withe the result that WP starts contradicting itself. We seem here to have a historiographic dispute. It is legitimate for the main article to set out both views, unless one side of the argument consists of a small group of mavericks (whose views are not worthy of discussion). It is possble the detail of the historiographic arguments should be kept out of the main article and set out in a forked article (being a sort of appendix). I am a historian, but not a specialist on this area. I suspect that all this is built on the interpretation of a handful of medieval chronicles. Accordingly, there is a legitimate disagreement among historians as to the course of evetns and how they should be interpreted. WP should provide a WP:NPOV setting out all arguments. However this should not be done by producing duplicate articles, so that they can contradict each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka and peter, this is not the way to handle editing disputes. It is relatively difficult for someone coming to a long dispute from outside to know what the actual root of the matter is--am i right that the question is whether to describe the relationship as a/an alliance b/independent parties acting occasionally in cooperation or c/the complete subject and vassalage of some of the crusader kingdoms to the Mongols? It is quite obvious that people on the spot will describe matters differently. As I understand it in general, the Mongol conquests operated by terrorizing local populations and rulers into cooperation by the threat of total extinction. The Mongols characteristically called them allies, in order to justify the expected total willingness to assume whatever excessive demands they placed on them, and to discourage rebellion in their rear. "Of course we're putting you in the front lines next time- you are enthusiastic about supporting our war, aren't you? Wouldn't you rather risk death there than meet it by immediate decapitation of every adult in your city like so many of your neighbors?" Like most conquerors, they treated hem like vassals if not slaves. It worked very well. Obviously historians of the subjected nation will make of it as best they can--and horrifed people a little out of the path of danger will report it very differently. And the Mongols themselves will say something to their own glory. And the Western writers furthest from the action will understand this imperfectly, in their familiar vocabulary.

so there is no point in multiplying quotations--there are enough sources that one can find as many as one wants fro whatever point of view one wishes to take. Like many similar WP controversies, this focuses around terminology: is country X an invader or liberator? the answer is that is is rarely describable exactly in a single sentence.

But the way to deal with a difficult series of articles is not to delete most of them. Historical topics can be divided by both region and chronology, and I dont see any reason not to use both ways if the topic is important enough, or why they must always be in perfect agreement: its not as we had a mission to propagate the absolute truth, and must avoid all heresy. At the moment, you are trying both to shorten the main article and delete the subsidiary chronological ones, and i dont think that's a sensible course to follow. I tend to agree the main article in its alternate form was much too long, and the current version is better. But that should be a reason for keeping the others, not for deleting them/.

Closing them all with no consensus at this point is usually considered premature, but I think it would be justified as the only way likely to find a solution. If there could be a moratorium on the need to defend video, RPG, and other popular culture articles, and if we could agree on any sort of compromise solution at WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE, I'd have time to give it a try as an informal mediator. I'd much rather learn more about the Mongols than about RPGs. I'd much rather work on history than on television series..DGG (talk)

I strongly disagree with that proposal.Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments above were directed to the Fork issue. I was expressing no view on the merits of the articles, as I am not qualified to do so. My view is that the subject should all be dealt with in one article. If there are multiple valid POVs they should all appear with discussion of their respective merits. These are interpretations, and may well all be valid views of the facts. However historiographic arguments tend to be boring to the general reader, and may thus be banished (in effect) to a specialists' appendix. Perhaps my view should have been merge back to main article which is the usual answer to POV forks. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A content dispute is not a proper reason for requestion a deletion. Particulalry when the articles(s) in question are very well referenced and linked within Wikipedia in addition to having the potential for further expansion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It's clear from size the article will need splitting, but the cleavage lines PHG has chosen, while convenient from one point of view, seem not to be supported by page consensus. Better to fix POV fork issues first, as suggested by several editors above, then find a more organic division. BusterD (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Articulate Conception

Not notable. Heck, not even comprehensable. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I previously proded this article but it appears as if the creator removed my prod without explanation. Non-notable or comprehensible. Redfarmer (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Wryspy (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete on G1 - looks like patent nonsense to me Teleomatic (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - We would need a second article just to explain what this one means.Gwynand (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Anthem

This filmmaker and "Wonder-boy" might soon be notable, but isn't quite there yet. Fails WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article and added a reference to the Grammy Awards nominee list, but I'm inclined to agree with the nominator here. Unless the article is expanded to include reliable references, it should be deleted. Kamek (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Hashmi

Comes nowhere near meeting the notability criteria in WP:BIO, which states "Just being an elected local official... does not guarantee notability". The article does nothing to suggest notability beyond being a local government councillor and Google suggests nothing (unless it's the same Sami Hashmi as the excellent speller in Florida!) BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, common practice on Wikipedia (see WP:OUTCOMES) is that local councillors in major metropolitan cities such as London are likely notable enough for articles, even if councillors in most cities generally aren't. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it states they are only like to be notable if they "(a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage" which I don't think is the case here.BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as..." Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this I've started a discussion on WP:OUTCOMES to try and clarify which bodies are notable. I think is intended to apply to city wide bodies. If you take the examples listed (Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco and London) and include councillors in the count you would have 44, 50, 11 and around 1,500 people in each city notable for being elected. If you just included the London Assembly the London would have a more reason 25. Please pop across and voice an opinion! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rose (porn star)

AfDs for this article:

NN pornstar. Amber Rose has been in one movie, there are no sources about the movie, and the article is supported by a very short blurb with no actual information about this person. WP:PORNBIO used to say that "niche" performers are notable, but this is not said anymore: rather, a performer is expected to be groundbreaking or especially significant in a subgenre. This article has had plenty of chances, but frankly there just aren't sources about this person enough to justify an article, so it needs to go. Mango juice^talk 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Edison (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Howard Stern story is here, and the NYPost reference in the article is on line, but it's not Glitches galore at Liza circus, it's Horny rose Mar. 15, 2002. It's not a very large mention, I don't think it rates a stand-alone, but it's an interesting bit in, um ... queefing lore. (I can't believe I just wrote that.) I'd merge the whole thing, with both refs, to Queef which redirects to Vaginal flatulence. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vaginal flatulence. Epbr123 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is already a sentence in Vaginal flatulence about Amber Rose, that is currently sourced to an IMDB link to the one film. That sentence needs to be removed since it is unsupported by reliable sources in an otherwise sourced article. I can't imagine anything beyond that would need to be said. And if that sentence does get removed, we really shouldn't have a redirect. Mango juice^talk 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB is not a reliable source for controversial information, but it is a fine source for minor technical information on a film, and it's not being used for more than showing that the film exists, date, and participants. If the film's existence is really in question, we can give links to half a dozen commercial sites that actually sell the thing, for example. The proposed merge will become 2-3 sentences, something like "VF, also called 'Queefing' has been the repeated subject of Howard Stern radio show competitions. (several refs) Amber Rose, the runner-up for one Stern show contest became the star of a series of pornographic film on the subject, Amber the Lesbian Queefer (2002), directed by Mimi Miyagi,(nypost ref)(imdb ref1) and Lesbian Queefing & Other Kinks (2003).(imdb ref2) " My Google search (actually User:AnonEMouse/MouSearch - I can recommend it :-) ) for material found Stern didn't restrict himself to that one Amber Rose show, though she was the only one that went off and made a movie series. I think the fact that VF isn't just a medical curiosity but a fetish, the subject of several high profile radio programs, and an actual pornographic film series is worth 2-3 sentences in that article, yes. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB is fair to use IMO to establish the existence of a film or its uncontroversial details. The existence of one film (or even two) with "queefing" in the title is extremely poor justification for the claim that queefing is a "subgenre" of porn (and I truly don't believe it deserves that , or the need to mention Amber Rose specifically as an example, and using the existence of one or two pornographic films to justify the claim that "queefing is erotic" is bad sourcing at best. As for the Howard Stern stuff, that might be reasonable but I'm not sure. I do know that the best way to build articles isn't to find a way to make them accommodate information that might be removed elsewhere, but to take a direct look at each article and expand it as it needs. (BTW, MouSearch is a nice tool, kudos.) Mango juice^talk 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still not notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grifball

On line game with 1000 players. Does that make it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable game variant and Halo fancruft. 69.255.170.118 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Wryspy (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no it doesn't. JuJube (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to prove notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Valley Today

Non-notable local talk show. Corvus cornix_talk 04:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Wryspy (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All Nakon 04:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Dms Debah

Subject is not notable within his field. Probable COI, Vanity, or Autobiography; Marie75 (talk · contribs) and 82.236.92.61 (talk · contribs) are the only substantive editors; all their other edits involve the subject or his films. No major edits on any of these articles since late 2006. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all, no notability asserted in the director or films. Only sources found were IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was taken from IMDB. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't just wholesale lift its articles from other places on the Internet and move things around then call it Wikipedia. So I deleted it. Yes, I removed content. The sin of all sins. But, really, the content is still there. Just go to the IMDB link at the bottom of the page. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless someone can point me towards actual references that discuss the importance of any of this. I don't see it in my searching. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 04:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Openserving

Fails WP:WEB. Dead project, no customers, website no longer exists, references are all to press-release announcements of the project; no substantive discussion of the project is referenced. Therefore, no longer notable, if it ever was. Argyriou (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent organization Wikia. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd like to point out that the current status of the project is irrelevant to a discussion as to if something is notable. There are many notable failed projects with articles. Secondly, there are no press-releases referenced in the article. There are, however, three reliable sources. USAToday, DailyTimes.com.pk and Journalism.co.uk - three separate newspapers. I say it meets our requirements... if only barely. I wouldn't be oposed to a merge if thats what we wanna do. The content should really be kept somewhere. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three of the references you cite (which are the three from the article) are essentially re-written press releases, with a couple of words from Jimbo or others where they spout a couple more buzzwords. But it's just announcements. Openserving isn't even a notable failure. That said, if someone wants to add a sentence or two to Wikia about this particular bit of vaporware, I don't see much problem with that. Argyriou (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep Would be nice if the information is kept somewhere. --till (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't assert notability and refs are press releases which are not generally regarded as reliable sources. If reliable independent sources can be found then keep. A redirect or merge is also possible. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Press releases do not reliable sources make. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* keep; however,.... A year ago I'd created a redirect: < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=openserving&diff=162358044&oldid=97903672 >.

If deletion is chosen, then, please do revert.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you please sign your message using four tildes? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For some reason, this project seems to have disappreared. The cited references appear very dated and there is no 'former glory' of the kind that might justify an historical article. If the project comes back to life, this article can be recreated. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 04:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Waodani

Long list of non-notable people. Operation Auca sufficiently covers this. Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources provided sadisfy notability for the group, they do not "deserve" an article each, but grouped together like theyare should be fine. Yes Operation Auca covers similar info to an extent, but this is much more detailed and seems to be well written. I remember reading Through Gates of Splendor when I was younger and the stories seem to check out. Fosnez (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides valuable background info for the one on Operation Auca. Maybe the 2 should be merged. But it would be too bad if this info was lost. 83.202.12.125 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely uninteresting. All these persons are non notable. If we keep it, I want my name on wikipedia because I am a member of diverse communities much more famous than the Waodani. Poppy (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "uninteresting" is irrelevant. And don't you know how to find the list of all Wikipedians? Wryspy (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it appears to be helpful in further understanding Operation Auca, a significant subject and featured article. Noroton (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 04:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promise of Redemption

Non notable band Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited (via one of the band members). Pharmboy (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actualy, it is, per WP:BAND. I argue the other band is not notable either though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Wryspy (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Valencia (band). This should really be a redirect, since Valencia is far more notable at this time. Chubbles (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less'n there are any objections, I can just do that myself... Chubbles (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia (band)

I see no indication that this band meets WP:MUSIC Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree with the nom on this one. At the level of stamping out their own CDs. Even their own "website" is just a redirect to myspace. Pharmboy (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep After article was improved (good job). They seem to meet WP:BAND now with proper citations. Might be proper to withdraw nomination now. Pharmboy (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one might be nudging upwards. Spin.com named them as a band of the day (and, though I can't find the archives for the 2006 Artist of the Year competition, apparently did quite well in that); they also spent some time on the Warped Tour] in 2007, touring a good chunk of the Northeast. Here's a review of their album on PopMatters, another from PunkNews. ~~Unfortunately, they're still on the edge of notability to me, so I'm just going to provide the info and say Neutral. (This fence is comfy!)~~ Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep based on Chubbles' work. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fits WP:BIO. Also, this has already been nominated for deletion and was kept, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Surrender Records. Acidskater (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it looked familiar. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:BAND? Which exact criteria are you refering to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN clearly indicates that you can't use the outcome of one AFD to judge another. It doesn't matter that it was nominated an kept before. Pharmboy (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN I feel strongly that this page should be deleted. The amount of vadalism assoiciated with this page is unimaginable.

(talk) 12:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:BAND. I don't see how this page should be deleted because there is vandalism. Also, I'm not posting that it already was kept because I think that should judge it, I posted it so people can see what the argument was last time and why it was kept. Acidskater (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a raft of sources to this page, including the above cited by Tony Fox. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Top of the Tower

I believe this fails WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING, and due to this articles resemblance to a DVD Booklet, this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. The article has no references of any sort, fails to assert notability, and has received only minor improvements since its inception, almost exactly a year ago. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 05:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this ad. Wryspy (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable luxury

This article has been copied from Wikitionary. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't. There's no affordable luxury article, and even if there were, that wouldn't be a reason for deletion. Do you have any valid reason for deleting this article, that is actually based upon our Wikipedia:Deletion policy? Please always supply rationales that are firmly based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't define its subject very well. How do we know what is "alluring"? What does "steep but affordable" even mean? Almost speediable under A1. --Alksub (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kutlushah

The names of perhaps several hundred Mongol commanders appear in the primary sources. Kutlushah does not need his own article. The article includes none of the information normally present in biography. We know only that he was active at the beginning of the 14th century and participated in an invasion of the Levant. In addition Kutlushah includes much disputed information already present at Franco-Mongol alliance. It is my belief that this article functions only to promote further a specious and idiosyncratic interpretation of events that has for some time now been under discussion at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Aramgar (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though Kutlushah was indeed a Mongol officer, there is very little known about him, and all we have are some passing mentions of his name, along with passing mentions of many other Mongol officers as well. There's not enough biographical information to create a separate article. The main purpose of this article seems to just be as a WP:COATRACK, as a shell to contain some biased WP:POVFORK information, in an attempt to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Further, though the article appears to have many sources, most of them are just copy/pasted in from the Franco-Mongol alliance, and have little or no information whatsoever on Kutlushah. The actual "sources" are mostly Luisetto, Demurger, and Nicolle, who just have passing mentions. The article clearly appears to have been created in bad-faith, and should be deleted. --Elonka 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Information on these two generals is fairly slim, but still allows for a proper article. Please kindly keep your accusations of bad faith to yourself. This is untrue, and as far as I know, this constitutes a personal attack. PHG (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like Mulay, this article is also not about Kutlushah but the battle. Content can be split but only correctly. This is currently misleading the reader that the article is about Kutlushah when its not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually added quite a lot of biographical information on both. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, article still contains some battle/non-Kutlu. related information which should be moved into the main article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a biographical entry which deserves a place. I see no reason why the article could not possibly be altered in the future to be more biographical. Unlike the other pages nominated as part of this same dispute, this article at least deserves a place in theory and so I strongly suggest we keep it. I have no problem with articles on any Mongol general for whom there are a few passing references, so long as it is encyclopaedic and well-sourced. Many figures get articles on just as slim primary sources. And this article seems to follow the life/career of Kutlushah. Srnec (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a Biographical article on a major and well-known Mongol general. There is no reason whatsover to delete this article, as already stated by several editors who are highly knowledgeable of this subject (Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine). PHG (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject that can be expanded further.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Another in the Mongol Alliance walled garden of original research. The amount of sources cited has no bearing on whether the sources actually say what is asserted in the article. This article appears to be a coatrack for pushing the Mongol Alliance POV. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it should probably be pruned down a bit to lose some of the unneeded/unused sources and the unneeded original source quotations. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD underwent a deletion review, at which the result was endorsed.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex

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}}.

Attention

Many extended comments have been moved from this page to the talk page. Please, if you are going to discuss in extended comments the subject of the article (rather than the subject of its deletion) direct yourself to the talk page here or of the article itself. ^Avruchtalk 00:27, 20 January 2008 '(UTC)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

AfDs for this article:

AfD Votes and Discussion

POV fork created by a pro-pedophile advocate in the middle of a redirect deletion discussion which was in favour of deletion. I don't care if the page is deleted or redirected to child sexual abuse but this POV fork has created nothing but controversy from day 1. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- When it was created (about 4-5 months ago), it was a POV article. The content has been markedly improved since then. We can't decide to delete the current article because it was created by the wrong editor with bad content. The original creator is banned; The content has been reworked extensively. Compare the first version of this article to the current one and see. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is true. When the user that started this article did so, it was just a stub, and the article has grown extensively since. Besides, the assertion made by SqueakBox that that user was a pro-pedophile advocate has not been corroborated. Furthermore, despite the above claim to the contrary, there has never been consensus to redirect or delete. If the quality of the article is at question, there's plenty of opportunities to improve it. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SqueakBox's assertion that "Adult-child sex" is a POV fork has been countered a number of times. For elaboration on why this is not a POV fork, please see the the reasoning provided for my Keep vote below. ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not "SqueakBox's assertion that "Adult-child sex" is a POV fork", that is an argument made by many editors in this discussion and over the last several months. SqueakBox brought the AfD, but this is not a new concern. Also, in addition to being a POV fork, it's also WP:FRINGE. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it actually has been SqueakBox's assertion that this article is a POV fork. Here SqueakBox is the first editor to drop the F-bomb on this article, back on 26 October. He makes the same assertion several more times: [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. It's likely that there are more, but the diffs show that the POV fork issue has been pushed along by SqueakBox. To now say that it's not SqueakBox's assertion runs counter to the facts. --SSBohio 00:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Pedophilia - covers the same topic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Except that it doesn't cover the same topic. Adult-child sex is a broader topic than pedophilia, encompassing both pedophile and non-pedophile instances, including cultures and times where there was no conception of pedophilia. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well put. For further explanation of why these two topics are different, please see the the reasoning provided for my Keep vote below. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There have been 15 to 20 proposals for delete/merge/redirect before, none of them successfully reaching a consensus. To echo SSB, "Involved Wikipedians and impartial admins have seen no consensus for such a redirection." --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's not play "nominate until the consensus goes my way" per WP:POINT - the last nom was only 3 months ago and the reasoning is the same as before. Cited and notable topic different from pedophilia and too large to be merged into that article anyway. --Strothra (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing of the sort going on here. The first afd did not vote overwhelmingly for keep, indeed the redirects and deletes between them were much larger. Since thenm the article has poroduced nothing but controversy with a small group resisting any change hook anbd dagger. its standard practice to nominate controversial articles more than once, Daniel Brandt was nominated 14 times before deletion and that isnt a record. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does that mean that you intend to nominate the article until it is deleted? --Strothra (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope it will be deleted this time. If it isnt my long term strategy would not involve multiple afds, from my current perspective. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to butt in, but by saying you have a strategy, aren't you indicating your goal is to get the article deleted one way or another, regardless of concensus? Pharmboy (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...And even if it didn't, that response is still indicative of an intent to disrupt constructive editing of an article. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not deconstructing one. See, WP:POINT and WP:GAME. --Strothra (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It treats Wikipedia like a magic eight ball; Simply shake it enough times and it will eventually produce the answer you want. --SSBohio 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oir redirect as suggested by the nominator. It could be redirected to either child sexual abuse or pedophilia. Pol64 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sourcing my above statement on prior requests for delete/merge/redirect (in addition to those RfD two links in that box above), see here, here, here, and here. Both the nominator and Pol64 have just today been warned by several admins of likely getting blocked for another attempt to unilterally re-direct as they have tried numerous times even way beyond the many official requests I have just linked. --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is utterly crazy. About 85% of this article's lifespan has been taken up by some attempt to nonconsensually purge, merge or delete, in which SqueakBox has been instrumental. digitalemotion 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is clearly not true. There were 4 independent attempts by 4 separate editors to resolve this issue and I was only involved int he first of those 4. The reason we need another afd is because so many editors oppose this article's existence. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. SqueakBox, you have been ever present in the attempt to undermine sourced material in this article. I am not aware of what you refer to when you mention four independent attempts to resolve some issue, but even if this is true, it would certainly undermine the sheer ferocity with which you have attempted to destroy this article. This has at times reached the level of claiming that opposing editors must either be sockpuppets or pedophile activists, thus elevating your opinion above theirs.

May I also add that the current article is nothing like it was a while ago, and nothing like the draft proposed by TlatoSMD. SqueakBox's constant, unjustified blanking of sourced material actually betters his case for deletion. digitalemotion 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't have to like something to understand it is notable, real, and reasonable to have an article on it. Pharmboy (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced, and surprisingly written from a NPOV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to how the "almost universally accepted view" part of the child sexual abuse section being approximately 1/3 the size of the other view conforms to WP:NPOV. - Revolving Bugbear 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article remains NPOV. In fact, there is even greater reason for keeping, as this article does not include historical and cross-cultural perspectives - for which there is a wealth of information that has already been copied to previous versions of this very article. The nominator's motivations anger me greatly. I have lost count of how many times he has acted rudely on talk pages, lost arguments, lost consensus and gone ahead with his Orwelian plans regardless. There is also something else that I think he has done right here which angers me even more, but this I shall not disclose this due to a lack of (absolute) certainty. GrooV (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 1

delete or make a redirect. Only paedos call it this. Wiki is accused of backing paedos and giving them a platform enough without this being here. We must guard what's left of our reputation over these issues. Also, obvious POV fork. Merkinsmum 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect could not be to CSA, but to pedophilia. Merkinsmum 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful there, you do realize you called everyone who has said to keep this article a pedophile? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that comment could have consisted of more tact. --Strothra (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merkinsmum, I would likewise urge you to be careful with statements such as this. Civility is very important and rash generalizations should not be thrown around haphazardly, especially when discussing controversial subjects like adult-child sex. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no defense of pedophilia. Read it for yourselves. Whenever I get involved in these things, I see the most vile innuendoes cast about. A little more civility would be nice. --SSBohio 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not concerned with what "paedos" call something or not, but rather a neutral account of each and every prevalent subject, however controversial it is. This will include a full appreciation of the fact that sexual contact between adults and children has a history and cross-cultural spectrum of variation that spans wildly beyond the current medical conception of child sexual abuse, however valid that conception indeed is. GrooV (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given a chance to actually have some meaningful editing, this could be a very decent article with lots of references to historical and scholarly works. There are at least two drafts in userspace[9][10] attempting to do just that since the mainspace article is subject to POV revert wars. Appears to be a WP:POINT nomination after losing the latest round of "let's gut the article."[11] Pairadox (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Make that 3 drafts. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious content fork. Not a single section of the article stands on its own; all major sections point to a main article on the subject of that section elsewhere. The minimal amounts of extra content available in this article all belong elsewhere. Rray (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue of a purported "POV fork" has been addressed a number of times within the proposals I have linked, all ending with no consensus for delete/merge/redirect, and where even ten people or more said that the current article for Child Sexual Abuse is a "POV fork" as it should limit itself exclusively to legal aspects. The reason why the official article currently looks as poor as it does (especially in comparison to the existing drafts) is the same as why those people who keep removing copious, well-sourced material have been reprimanded today by admins. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because an issue has been discussed before doesn't mean it's been solved. Just because no consensus was reached last time doesn't mean that a consensus can't be reached this time. I see no good reason to keep this article, as the material can and should be covered in other articles related to the subject. Rray (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is similar to a draft essay I am working on (and just used this example to add to) called Don't Bludgeon The Process. Pharmboy (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word you're looking for is "bludgeon", not "bludgen". Rray (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Pharmboy (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might not be a record particularly on AfD, but it certainly is a good candidate for record on total propososals and polls to delete/merge/redirect, especially when viewed in comparison to this article's age. Do you really have to succeed the 14 AfD polls for Daniel Brandt with 15 to 20 proposals to remove the material one way or another in just a few weeks? Just how much bloody noses of defeat does it take to warrant referring to WP:POINT? Also Rray, I repeat that the current bad shape of the article is due to those editors that have been warned of getting blocked today. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems as if this is the 2nd nomination for deletion, which doesn't seem excessive to me. Consensus can change over time, and three months seems to be a reasonable amount of time to wait to bring the matter up again. The editors being warned about being blocked seems irrelevant to me as to whether or not this article should be kept. The material in the article, and the material that could reasonably expect to be added to the article, can and should all be covered in the other articles on this subject. So the article has no reason to exist. Rray (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said, this might only be the second AfD, but several dozen of people reached no consensus in 15 to 20 delete/merge/redirect proposal polls to favor any of those proposed options. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been nowhere near several dozen. Please stop propagating this falsehood unless you are willing to back it mup with diffs. When I last counted about a week ago there were 17 people involved (not including admins in their role as admins or blocked users), you'd need ato prove at least twice that number were involved or you are simply exagerrasting. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, not referring to the people only taking part here, I count in the proposal polls I linked to User:Chick_Bowen, User:SqueakBox, User:BlindEagle, User:CheNuevara, User:Ssbohio, User:Colonel_Warden, User:Jmh123, User:Speciate, User:A.Z., User:Grutness, User:VanTucky, User:Will_Beback, User:Jtrainor, User:Lara_bran, User:Chris_Buckey, User:Flyer22, User:Eleland, User:Roman_Czyborra, User:Serpent's_Choice, User:Rocket000, User:Rocksanddirt, User:Enrico_Dirac, User:TlatoSMD (see User_talk:TlatoSMD), User:WJBscribe, User:Ronnotel, User:Jeeny, User:Mr.Z-man, User:J_Milburn, User:After_Midnight, User:Melsaran, User:WikiLeon, User:Picaroon, User:Gracenotes, User:Mtmelendez, User:Pol64, User:Anchoress, User:The_Scarlet_Letter, User:Mangojuice, User:XDanielx, User:Thebainer, User:Wikidudeman, User:GroomingVictim, User:Strichmann, User:Penwhale, User:Homologeo, User:HolokittyNX, User:Digital_Emotion, User:Albert_Wincentz, User:Nihiltres, User:Photouploaded, User:Deus_Ex_Machina, User:VigilancePrime, User:Jack-A-Roe, User:Aditya_Kabir, User:Souljaman, User:Seicer, User:ThuranX, User:Nakon. That's 58 people, only tweo editors short of 5 dozen. --TlatoSMD (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote previously, but that doesn't change the fact that there is support for deletion, and this is the appropriate venue at which to discuss deletion. Rray (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination (was Snowball Keep) -- Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush all over again. This was sent for deletion only in November. It was closed as a Keep. SqueakBox took the result to deletion review. The review endorsed the close as keep. Unable to succeed that way, those favoring deletion attempted to merge this article into another. They were so persistent against consesnsus that the article required admin intervention. Then, the article was moved to adult-older teen sex, again without consensus. Another admin moved it back, for which trouble he has been threatened (by the nom) with being taken to arbitration. I want to see a consensus solution here, but this sort of activity makes seeing such a solution very difficult. --SSBohio 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) -- Updated my Keep !vote. Also, see this version for a better idea of what the article looked like before decimation. --SSBohio 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- The article has undergone a remarkable improvement in quality of writing and quantity of sources. It is (IMO) better now than in the version I linked to above. Anyone who made their judgment based on an earlier version of the article would be well-advised to look at the article now. --SSBohio 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Pairadox. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsensical POV fork. Enough with the POINTy refactoring and moving it around; just nuke it with extreme prejudice. krimpet ✽ 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per krimpet. Viridae ^Talk 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per krimpet -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Krimpet. It's just a euphemistic fork of another article. Merge into the two other main articles, at best case - Alison ^❤ 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a POV-fork with no content that relates only to this article - each section has a see also link to the main article on the topic, why do we need a page like this one that only summarizes other pages? Also, can people knock off the comments? Make your argument in your entry and don't badger people with an opposing opinion. Obviously a touchy subject, so some extra care is warranted. ^Avruchtalk 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Granting your premise, the article would be keepable as one written in summary style. However, it's important to also consider what this article says about how the various concepts relate to each other. To overlook that is to conclude that we have no need of an article on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich since we already have articles on peanut butter, jelly, and white bread. Now I've gone & made myself hungry! --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. Addhoc (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect This should be a redirect to the proposed articcle, other than that, it can be deleted. Yahel Guhan 02:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After having looked at the article, I see no reason why any relevant references could not be merged elsewhere and this page deleted and then redirected accordingly. I know that the previous discussion closed as a "keep" back in October, but I also acknowledge that consensus can change and this article just feels redundant with Pedophilia, Child sexual abuse, and Age disparity in sexual relationships. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I could actually see a solid case to merge this article with age disparity in sexual relationships. I'm not sure why that hasn't come up before, or, if it has, how I missed it. This may be the breakthrough needed to move the process forward. Thanks! --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Krimpet and Grand Roi. There has been plenty of time for this article to be merged/refactored/integrated elsewhere appropriately but it hasn't happened and it will, apparently, not happen. We have other articles that cover this topic; this one exists to highlight a minority point of view. Mango juice^talk 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True its given enough time but did not develop due to whatever reason. Topic is very sensitive under law, and should be treated somewhat like WP:BLP, unless in good shape its better to delete. Neutrality is highly called for, and the article can be developed in user space and recreated after DRV. Currently merging/redirecting to neutral title Age disparity in sexual relationships would be appropriate, since in contrast, same-aged-minors-sex (no age disparity) is permitted under law. Again the merging, rather than just redirect, would be met with resistance by opposing users. Voiced axix (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think I can put it better than LGRDC. Generally speaking, the project is best served when different points of view are forced to joust in the marketplace of ideas. The existing articles he cited are the appropriate place for that. Xymmax (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork, designed to confuse the difference between adult-child sex and adult-minor sex for toxic progagand purposes. See here for extensive background on where this is coming from. Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an accusation. Do you have evidence of the propaganda purposes of me and the other editors? Also, I just reviewed the Wikisposure article you cite. It appears to be an attempt to galvanize on-wiki reaction by opponents of the pedophiles it identifies rather than (as implied above) an attempt by pedophiles to organize against this project. Wouldn't a site listing Wikipedians who are supposedly pedophiles be a form of attack site? --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry but are you seriously basing your argument on the sayings of a site spawned by Perverted-Justice? As likely everyone who's been involved with PAW articles already knows, PJ has been saying negative and shady stuff like this for quite a while, jumping on anyone not quick enough to lynch editors that dare not practice their anti-pedophile vigilante methods. It would indeed help your own case to base arguments on substantiated evidence and article quality, instead of linking to attack sites. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork. Tiptoety ^talk 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adds nothing that is not already present in the 3 main articles it draws from. If there is something special about this topic framed in this way, then it has not been properly communicated in this article; I don't think that this is the case, so I think this article should go. Ante lan ^talk 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the behaviour of SqueakBox and Pol64 and a couple of like-minded people has been downright disgraceful in the last few days and the nomination is in bad faith, my personal opinion is that on content grounds they're largely correct that the original topic is a better source and some of the content/scope of this one risks bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. Orderinchaos 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork per above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~STRONG KEEP~~ see below - BTW, as this was a very clearly Bad Faith nomination, a Crusade against the article and well-referenced topic, and this question has been Asked-and-Answered already, not once but twice. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Page is vastly improved, expanded, formatted, and even referenced since the AfD began (again). Of course, the same justification for keep exists... WP:Notability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Verifiability are all met, and met well, as evidenced by the 50+ references and 40,406 bytes article size. The structure of the article also was overhauled to hopefully allow for more and better expansion as well as help push a NPOV (section on abuse, section on non-abuse, section on history, section on modern, etc...). VigilancePrime (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind the change in VigilancePrime's vote was, for some weird reason, removed from this page. However, if anyone wishes to read it, please direct your attention to this diff. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork of the obvious kind. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC) _{Full disclosure: Saw this on AN/I.}[reply]
Delete all POV forks. Neıl ☎ 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A PoV fork is by definition the same content with a different spin. This is substantially different content to child sexual abuse that looks at various contexts in an anthropological and sociological light, were the content merged, it would be unmerged soon after, and given that it is a notable topic, studied and researched, there is no valid criterion for deletion.
In addition, I am largely against second and further nominations without substantial reason. Wearing down a page's defenders is not how content ought to be dictated, especially in controversial areas 69.210.45.157 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No POV forks is a very strong argument, but I don't think this is a POV fork. There is overlap, certainly, as there has been a lot published about the question weather or not all Child-adult sex is child sexual abuse. (or adult-minor sex, or any of those forms). The fact that there is academic discussion "do all cases of 'a' involve 'b'?" means that 'a' is not the same thing as 'b'. In this case, do all cases of adult child sex involve child sexual abuse. My personal opinion on the matter (that is, it should be regarded child sexual abuse in all cases I can think off) is not quite relevant to the discussion on the question of deletion. The scopes of the two articles do differ, and therefor this is not a POV fork. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the entirety of what a POV fork is, see WP:CFORK. Maybe it would also be accurate to describe this as a platform for WP:SOAP. Most POV forks needn't/usually don't contain entirely the same subject matter as the main article, but what is contained in them is decided by what propounds a point of view, with selective parts of the main subject or tangents of it covered without the correct context of the majority view/other views in the main article. Merkinsmum 12:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how does "Adult-child sex" prevent the correct context from being used, or how does it avoid a neutral point of view (which is at the definition of a POV fork)? And how is it a soapbox? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at all costs. I can't exactly call myself a fan or practitioner, but this has been done throughout history and in many present cultures. The first time I heard of CSA was in the seventies/early eighties, so unless this is a magical discovery, why all the delete votes? And what is biased about the current version? Were all these people born after the eighties, when discussion and research of this became tabu? Karla Lindstrom 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-put. If this topic is only covered as child sexual abuse, then no information about how adult-child sex fit into Western or non-Western cultures prior to the advent of the child sexual abuse paradigm would be topical. No information about how non-Western societies, in the modern era, view the subject differently than Western ones. To do so says that we, as a project, not only believe that adult-child sex is abusive to the child, but that we specifically require that everyone reading or editing here never look at it from historical, anthropological, sociological, or any other view aside from the moral issue. --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed some sections of extended discussion because for some reason a few editors think its necessary to respond to every delete vote with the same arguments, slightly rewritten and a little bit longer than last time. Consider the possibility that people just disagree with you. ^Avruchtalk 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it are not only those who argue to keep the article that have been doing this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch, I understand how well-intended your edits were; What I had trouble with was the edits' instructing editors not to edit in those sections. Also, the first collapsed section (AFAIK) is the only section in which RRay or I have discussed whether I could characterize my !vote as Speedy Keep. I don't see where we've been repeating it elsewhere. However, I've considered the possibility that you disagree with me about that, and that's ok. --SSBohio 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 2

Keep I don't agree this is a POV fork. Seems reasonable as an article in its own right. --John (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Wikipedia doesn't need a pro-pedophilia POV fork. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why would I and 13 other users have voted for this, if it were in anyway biased towards a pedophilia (or any highly outspoken) agenda? Could you point to what exactly you see as pro-pedophile when the article is named and written to provide a non theoretical base for a subject once adressed only by a theory, that of CSA? Have you never read publications such as the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, which take a similar, cool, nonhysterical and nonmedicalised perspective when dealing with all subjects sexual? GrooV (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know why you (and others) voted for this despite its pro-pedophilia stance, but I can think of two possible explanations: 1) you are pro-pedophilia, and 2) you don't think that the article is pro-pedophilia. I'm going to assume that the latter is the correct explanation. The bottom line is this: adult-child sex is a sneaky way to paint child sexual abuse and pedophilia in a more positive light. And no, I have not read the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality and I don't intend to, because I already know what pedophilia is. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate homosexuality with paedophilia in your above remark. :| Orderinchaos 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries. Just making sure (there was about three ways to read your previous sentence). Orderinchaos 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I admit that merging into Age disparity in sexual relationships is the most sensible merge suggestion so far, however it would be odd to make up one section that'd be longer than the rest of the article as all 3 incomplete drafts have a size around 40-50 kB. Furthermore, I'd like to repeat what I've said elsewhere, which is that I have said from day 1 of my involvement that babies and toddlers ought not be muddled up with pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents, and none of them should be muddled up with adolescents. Adult-child sex started out as relating to pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents, not to babies, toddlers, or adolescents, as you can see in the further advanced drafts, so there is no need to call upon unwarranted "muddling" any age lines. Third, I'd like to announce that the nicks of a number of people who have posted here are listed as "identified pedophiles" here, obviously because the people maintaining that list didn't like their posts and edits made here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. As they are even listing this very AfD on their site under Updates, everybody posting here has the chance of finding his nick, sometimes even his personal street address and photos on that site, branded as an "identified pedophile" if those people don't like their posts. I'm worried this might be affecting the outcome, and also the behavior of people here. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I have now also been informed that the site I, as did others way up here, linked to contains spyware. --TlatoSMD (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no spyware on those pages, that website runs the same software as Wikipedia - it even has the MediaWiki.org link on the bottom of the page. It's nothing but html, css and javascript. No way could that page install spyware on your computer when you simply view the text. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What effect would one presume this kind of organised networking has on the final outcome of a vote such as this? GrooV (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think any evidence of organised networking offsite and online would need to be brought here, certainly no evidence at wikiexposure of that going on but it may be happening in boy and girl chat forums. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also cannot see any direct evidence of parachuting, but from my limited experience of the forums concerned, Boy Chat and Girl Chat are both open Pedophile forums (any encouragement would be noticed and reported) whilst Wikisposure is allied to some sort of private linear style messageboard.

What amuses me about the wikisposure page is that it claims that the article under discussion was created by Boy Chat, which is a well known messageboard for pedophiles, and not an organisation. The guy who created the article (User:A.Z.) is a ninteen-year-old gay Brazilian male with a long history of non-pedophile-related participation at Wikipedia. GrooV (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Paedophilia is unrelated to most cases of adult-child sex (see Child sexual abuse#Pedophilia). Child sexual abuse is a legal and social contruct, and much of anthropological, zoological, and academic material that Adult-child sex should cover would not befit the Child sexual abuse article. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm commenting not to argue with the above !vote, but only to indicate that this statement is incorrect: "Paedophilia is unrelated to most cases of adult-child sex (see Child sexual abuse#Pedophilia)." That is not what the linked article states, and it's not what the science shows. Substituting the word "some" for the word "most" would make the statement more accurate, though vague. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Odd you didn't take me up on it when I first stated so above. For those scientific empiric peer-reviewed studies that actually make a difference between an attraction and a behavior, and that actually acknowledge there can be different motivations for what is legally labeled as CSA, regularly find only 1-3, maxbe 5% of cases are due to paedophilia, see for instance Freund & Costell 1971; Quinsey, Steinman, Bergesen & Holmes 1975; Howells 1981; Abel, Mittleman & Becker 1985; Knight et al. 1985; Wolter 1985; Brongersma 1990; Freund 1991; Freund & Watson 1991; McConaghy 1993; Lautmann 1994; Hall, Hirschman & Oliver 1995; Ward et al. 1995; Hoffmann 1996; Seikowski 1999. Don't Abel 2001 me on this, for her popular STOP CHILD ABUSE NOW! book is a largely fictional work, and Abel defines "paedophilia" as a behavior, so lo and behold, she finds that a behavior is the most likely cause for a behavior! As for "denial", those studies are hardly going by self-identification but rather by distinct mental and behavioral patterns, even though self-identification and reports on their own behavior in the case of paedophilia has the strongest correlation of accuracy and factuality with their mental and behavioral patterns as is back-checked by means of independent outside sources (including but not limited to family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers and employers, not least of all the involved children, if any). --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been mentioned many times that this is a POV fork of something, but I don't see of what. The nomination doesn't mention it, and the way SqueakBox is labeling people pro-pedophile doesn't add any credibility to his claims either. Grue 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually decided not to edit some days, because I have gone through this in real life before and do not want to face it again. Really, this is my main objection to the way that this article has been managed. The ad hominem has to stop before someone is "sniffed out" by Wikisposure and gets a brick through their window. GrooV (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AnotherSolipsist. There is history and interpretation of this category of interpersonal relations which is at least as old as civilization. Whether one has a facile 'like' or dislike' of the subject-matter, any proposal to erase it, or to subsume it under the conceptually different, limited, and recent, social construct of "CSA" is, at best anti-intellectual, and at worst transparently Orwellian. Strichmann (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, see [12] (Category:Pederasty -something going on with my wikilinks) - we have [13](Category:Pederasty in ancient Greece), Pederasty in the Renaissance etc and so on. There's no shortage or suppression of paedophilia articles and about the history of it - probably there are other categories and subcategories too. Look at them all- hardly Orwellian suppression. But this article consists of cherry-picked ideas designed to forward an implied POV. Several sites have said that wiki is paedo-enabling and some were even banned because they were trying to use Wikipedia to pull kids on here.Merkinsmum 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this is conceptually difficult to grasp – but you aren't the first, so no need to feel embarrassed. Pedophilia is a label assigned in order to categorize. It says nothing about the two-way interpersonal relationships involved. 'Adult-child sex', on the other hand, constitutes a form of relationship between two individuals. Treating the two concepts as identical would be the equivalent of treating 'the state of being an athlete' and 'the carrying out of a game of tennis' as identical/interchangeable terms.

As for the “paedo-enabling” claim, as you eloquently put it, it is patently clear why websites might be suggesting that...in order to influence the outcome of discussions such as this, to accord with their agenda. No doubt it you were to mention any of those websites names, that would become obvious.Strichmann (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Google Scholar says there are 294 scientific articles mentioning the term. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. another editor mentioned this search in reply to my !vote below. I replied there; the gist is that when the word "abuse" is omitted from the Goggle Scholar search for the article title term, the result goes down to only 38 pages. And the Google Scholar search for "child sexual abuse" brings in 35,600 pages. Search URLs and context are in my reply below. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, when the abuse article would naturally and logically represent the conceptual forkage from the ACS activity itself? Where do you see the POV break from the CSA article? Is it in the title? If so, why? Is it in the material? If so why? There is no doubt that the ACS move brings things further towards a position of favouring the ACS practise itself. But thankfully, this is inherent to establishing a neutral teritory such as this article.
- Maybe the article would be better described as a NPOV fork? GrooV (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic it would but if one thinks you are wrong iand that the article should be CSA to describe ACS as a fork would be entirely logical. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no reason why this article can't be organized in a way that includes sections on many different topics related to this subject. CSA is obviously just one part of ACS. Ospinad (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not understand the problem here. Adult-child sex is the bare description of the act. Sex between adults and children. Whether this is abuse or not (and I fervently believe it is, but my personal views on the subject are irrelevant - maybe you should take a leaf out of my book on this one, SqueakBox) is an entirely seperate issue and depends on the culture we are talking about. Right here and now, it is considered abuse. Fair enough, but it wasn't always so. If anything, CSA is a POV fork of ACS, because it's just one way of looking at the issue. It may be the right way, but Wikipedia is not meant to judge whether it is or not. That's the whole POINT of NPOV. "Adult-child sex" as a term is not an inherently POV term. "Child sexual abuse" is, because 'abuse' is a subjective term depending on what is considered abuse at the time. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a leaf out of your book? How so? My only interest is our neutrality policy, perhaps you would care to take a leaf out of my book as NPOVG is my primary motivation here. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It is a tireless crusade against anything remotely resembling pedophilia, which, granted, is a noble cause, however, it has nothing to do with neutrality, or building an encyclopedia. You have repeatedly accused good-faith editors who were working towards such a neutrality as being "pro-pedophile activists", acted against consensus and are arguably doing anything BUT act in the interests of the neutrality policy. A review of your edits and comments here make this clear. DEVS EX MACINA _pray —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a POV fork. Wikipedia already has an article on Pedophilia --RucasHost (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a POV fork of other articles. But I would recommend to make a separate article about this kind of sexual behaviot among animals, which is described in scientific literature and even helps survival of certain mammalian species, although I do not have a reference handy.Biophys (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the external link Herostratus posted and other comments, I believe some participants have felt coercive pressure and withdrawn their statements.^{[14] [15]}. --SSBohio 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And some have been so digusted by that and other tactics of the cabal that they have ceased editing the article out of concern for their safety and fear of being branded pro-pedophile.[16] Pairadox (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that I have received a death threat off site but online concerning my edits to these pedophile articles so if this is happening it is happening on all sides. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To put this into context, the "death threat" against Squeak literally was the opinion that he "needs fixing". --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE CHANGE:DELETE - If Squeaky will allow me to change my vote to the vote he is crusading for, and hyper-zealous admins will allow me to say why I am doing so, I would like to Change My Vote from Strong Keep to Strong Delete. The reason: This issue will never be settled. I stand by my earlier factual comments (and all the links that I provided to prove the point). This article will be deleted, it's just a matter of time, and the personal attacks, intimidation, and harrassment are not worth it. Therefore, Strong Delete per WP:STEAM. (Really, it's the only way to end this war. SSB and Pair are correct about it, above.) VigilancePrime (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask the closing admin to carefully consider the reason for this !vote when weighing its import and effect. --SSBohio 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind the change in VigilancePrime's vote was, for some weird reason, removed from this page. However, if anyone wishes to read it, please direct your attention to this diff.

Keep. Article is well sourced currently, the topic is a notable one and there is no concensus for deletion. We should try to work through the differences of opinion on this topic. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 3

Delete. per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, non-satisfaction of WP:V and WP:N and as POV fork of child sexual abuse and pedophilia.

The title itself is the core issue. As long as the article exists, it will be a magnet for trouble and confusion, because it mixes together separate topics: (1) adults sexually using pre-pubetry children for sex (for example toddlers and very young schoolchildren), and (2) sex between adults and post-puberty adolescents. Joining these different topics under the name "Adult-child sex" obscures the two meanings and implies they are the same, which they are not.

Every mainstream psychology association, child protection organization, governments around the world, and the vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree that all sexual interactions of adults and children is "child sexual abuse", with thousands of references supporting. The fringe term "adult-child sex" appears in only a few sources, and the webpages that quote them, giving the impression of more support for the term than actually exists. Wikipedia should not have an article with the title "adult-child sex" because it's misleading original research, and not verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course a complete misrepresentation of facts. The vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree the opposite: that adult-child sex is not inherently abusive (in the linguistically correct sense of the term). Before the ACS article was distorted by vested interests, the talk page listed in excess of 100 academic sources confirming that point. There were no scholarly sources listed in support of your misrepresentation, with the vague exception of Finkelhor (who in fact does not support your claim, but concedes that he argues against all adult-child sexual relationships not because they are inherently abusive but based on his (necessarily subjective) personal morality). If there are "thousands of references" supporting your claim in so far as "the majority of researchers and clinicians" are concerned, why were none of them ever presented (despite the request of editors)?

In any event, this discussion is not about the myths surrounding adult-child sexual encounters, but about whether the article is a topic in its own right. The fact that it is an umbrella term for possible interactions between two individuals is self-evident. Concepts such as 'pedophilia', 'pederasty' and 'child sexual abuse' may share some degree of overlap as possible manifestations or constructions of 'adult-child sex', but they are nevertheless separate and distinct.

'Adult-child sex is no more a “POV fork” of 'child sexual abuse' than 'heterosexual sex' would be a POV fork of 'rape'. --Strichmann 09:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupted discussion thread. The above comment posted in reply to my !vote previously had extensive discussion, with replies from myself and several editors. The whole thread was moved to the talk page by another editor, and now the above has been restored here by its original poster, but without the rest of the thread. To avoid moving the long thread back here again, here's the link to where it was moved: Talk page, Discussion 5. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was moved, unilaterally, off this discussion page, which would give the distorted appearance to anyone reading this discussion that Jack-A-Roe's arguments to delete were unchallenged. Whatever the motivation may have been for doing so, it could give the appearance of authoritarian censorship. Please do me the courtesy of not moving my comments. Strichmann (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one tried to give a distorted impression. The person who moved your comment did it as part of an overall cleanup of the packed page. Your words and all the responses that followed were moved along with five other long discussions that are now all on the talk page. So don't take it personally, no-one tried to undermine your response. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is icky to most sensibilities, but there are plenty of good articles on this site about topics that offend us. This article seems to describe--in a reasonably encyclopedic, NPOV way--something distinct from sexual abuse or pedophilia. Wouldn't make sense to merge. Also calling another editor "pro-pedophile advocate" strikes me as less than civil.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't my descriptionm but that of the admin who indefinitely blocked him so I think it is a fair comment, and far from not being civil it is a description of a POV that has been pushed endlessly on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Squeak, not only is there a number of different views on A. Z.'s block verifiable by a number of internal Wikipedia links and debates I don't have handy right now, you also called "pro-pedophile" on any single person that ever dared not subjecting to your uneducated guesses. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further to the above mentioned by TlatoSMD, could it not be true that evan an administrator is uncivil? They may be technically privileged, but apart from that, we're all equal in what we say. Karla Lindstrom 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have not even read this article, and don't terribly wish to. (I find the topic uninteresting at best and basically -- in the words of the previous commenter -- "icky.") Therefore I have no opinion about whether the current writing of this article is that WP needs or whether it conforms to our standards. However, I do very strongly feel that some such article is needed -- unless we are to succumb completely to the ethnocentrism of our own period -- and therefore, while the article might conceivably need rewriting -- it should not be deleted. The topic is not necessarily the same as child sexual abuse or pedophilia, although it could be twisted that way by proponents or opponents.
There were people outside of our period to whom versions of such concepts made sense. For example, in Pheadrus 249a, Plato has Socrates express the opinion that, after death, souls are not able to regain their spirituality readily, "unless it's someone who innocently loved wisdom or loved a boy in wisdom." This is my own translation, but you can look up that page of the original at The Perseus Project. If you click the "Greek" link on their page (and perhaps struggle a bit to get the Greek to render acceptably on your screen), you'll find that the word that Perseus's translator has decorously (and, in my opinion, in shameful dereliction of honesty) translated as "lover" is in fact "παιδεραστήσαντος" (paiderastêsantos) -- the participle of the verb meaning to love a boy erotically. Click the link on the Greek word for parsing and a link to a full dictionary definition.
Therefore, my thoughts are the following:
- I personally do not approve of "abusing" children and am prepared to take strong action to prevent it.
- I personally think that an adult having an erotic experience with an underage person almost inevitably, in almost all cases, constitutes "abuse."
- I am not personally interested in erotic experiences with children.
- I do not think that Plato meant to recommend "abusing" children as a spiritually regenerating exercise.
- I do not imagine that my personal moral sense is infallible or necessarily superior to Plato's.
- I imagine that Plato was speaking in a way that made sense within his culture (even though that culture may, like ours, have allowed abuses).
- For all I know, there were other cultures besides Plato's in which some such behavior was permitted or even regarded as good.
So, I think that intellectual honesty requires us have such an article, distinguishing that phenomenon from "sexual abuse" of children -- written to the usual standards, especially including NPOV, and with obvious cautions strongly expressed. William P. Coleman (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several articles that address the above [Greek-history-and-philosophy-related] topics in extensive depth: Pederasty, Pederasty in ancient Greece, Philosophy of Greek pederasty, Pederasty in the modern world, Platonic love, and more. The article under nomination for deletion is not needed to cover those topics any further. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) [re-edited to clarify, because from the discussion below, apparently my reply here was read in a different way than I intended it. Also, when I wrote it there were other comments above the post I replied to, that have since been moved to the talk page. The follow-up discussion below was written before I added this re-edit note, and, in retrospect I find it a digression, and I should not have replied to it at all. I stand by my original statement of my !vote to delete, for the reasons I stated.]--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack-A-Roe, if there are parts of the articles you mention that largely deal with adult-child sex, then it would make sense and benefit the project to incorporate, or at least summarize, them within the ACS article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed? By that logic the article on pederasty isn't needed because it's already covered in more detail in other sub articles like the ones you mentioned, or that the article on the United States is not needed because there's already an article for each of the 50 states. Ospinad (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I wrote. States are not POV forks of the USA. My reply was about the specific content the above user described. Maybe he hasn't seen those articles, I don't know. But "adult-child sex" is a POV fork of child sexual abuse, expressing the POV that adults using children for sex is not abuse. That's a classic POV fork. If it were not, there would not be so much emotional argument about the topic. This whole discussion is driven by POV. And there is more than one viewpoint; some people don't find adult-child sex to be abusive to the child. That's a POV, so it can be mentioned in the main article with due weight, but it's a fringe view and doesn't belong in a separate article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And there's also many other people in this poll who find that it's CSA that's the POV fork, so there's not even a consensus on that. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is what you wrote. I understand that you have (at least) two different reasons for wanting this article deleted. 1. You think it's a POV fork. 2. You think it's existence is unnecessary because the same material is already covered in other articles. In the post that I was replying to you didn't mention anything about a POV fork. I was responding to your reason #2. You said, "There are several articles that address the above topics in extensive depth." Then you listed a bunch of articles pertaining to pederasty. Then you said that this article is not needed because those topics are already covered in those articles. That says nothing about it being a POV fork. My use of the analogy of the 50 states of America was to compare it too your analogy of the subject of pederasty being spread over multiple articles. An article is "not needed" only when two articles consist of much of the same information. If one article is being used to summarize many different articles then it's not right to say that the article is not needed, even if everything in the summary article is already covered in all of the sub-articles but in more depth. Otherwise the article for pederasty or for the United States wouldn't be needed for that same reason. That was my point. As far as your argument about it being a POV fork, I think you are mistaking what a POV fork is. The belief that "adult-child sex is harmful" and "adult-child sex is not harmful" are both POV beliefs. One is much more popular than the other, of course, but that doesn't make the more common one any less of a POV. Unpopular beliefs are not the only ones that should be labeled POV. To keep an article NPOV doesn't mean that the amount of article space used to describe each belief should correspond to the popularity of those beliefs. You'll see that the article for Holocaust denial isn't smaller (nor should it be) than the article for Criticism of Holocaust denial even though Holocaust deniers are in a very small minority. To keep articles NPOV and not give undue weight to unpopular beliefs means that it should be made clear in the article which beliefs are the dominant ones and which ones are not. If 50% of an article is dedicated to a belief that is shared by 1% of the population and the other half to the more popular one then that is not wrong as long as it's made clear which one is which. Ospinad (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree, Ospinad has just given another reason why Jack's "big numbers" of opportunism shouldn't be seen as too reliable or relevant on any statement. See also WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clouding. Those are not my arguments, those are your interpretations and I see no reason to argue with you about it. This back and forth is of no value at all. I've stated my position for the closing admin and I'll leave it at that, other than to summarize, my reasons for deleting remain: WP:NPOV#POV fork, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, and lack of satisfying WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not a perspective I've ever heard of before now, is all I can say. But maybe I don't mix in the same circles all that often. Merkinsmum 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't need to "mix in certain circles" to find statements that the title Adult-child sex is NPOV, all you need to do is being able to read and scroll up and down all over this poll! By Jove, allthroughout this poll I'm feeling like I'm talking to people that have a problem with the fact that I'm able to read and to abundantly source my statements. --TlatoSMD (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child sexual abuse is harmful is only a POV in the same sense that smoking is harmful is a POV. In both cases, it is a statement of POV, and in both cases it's a POV that enjoys a tremendous degree of support. Neither article is a POV fork, and even though the child sexual abuse article has a POV in its title, it's not a POV fork either. On this point, Tlato & I part company. --SSBohio 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree I've been carried a bit overboard with the heated tone of this poll, so in order to clarify I'd like to echo somebody else here (William P. Coleman?) who said that the statement "All ACS is CSA" is just as much a POV as the opposing statement "No kind of ACS whatsoever is harmful". Without subscribing to either of those, I only intended to remind people that within this poll and elsewhere, we don't even seem to find anything remotely resembling a consensus on the first of the two statements. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many extended comments have been moved from this page to the talk page. Please, if you are going to discuss in extended comments the subject of the article (rather than the subject of its deletion) direct yourself to the talk page here or of the article itself. ^Avruchtalk 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for pointing this out, but that's not an accurate description of what you did. You moved my comments to the Talk page despite the fact that what I was very explicitly arguing for was to stick to the subject of deletion rather than arguing the substance of the article.

Furthermore, you certainly can't maintain that my not having read the article makes me ineligible for a discussion of whether an article of this general kind (rather than this particular version) should be allowed to exist.

Lastly, you're unreasonable to complain that my comments are too long. It keeps being emphasized that this is not a vote -- so I'd think that thoughtful comment and argument were desired over brief statements of opinion. William P. Coleman (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is value in being concise, but I wasn't 'complaining' that your comments specifically were too long. What is unclear about limiting the deletion page to !votes for or against deletion, and moving the other argumentation to the talk page? As I said on the talk page - if you haven't read the article, how are you qualified to determine whether it should exist? You're basically arguing that the title of the article should remain. Thats nonsense. Read it, return. ^Avruchtalk 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you will read the box above (the one with the big red exclamation point), it says, "please note that this is not a majority vote."

I'm not arguing for the title. My reasons are in my comments. William P. Coleman (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 4

Keep article seems well written and well sourced. Agree on icky though. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now, I don't know about the content of this particular article, but the argument that the article is a POV-fork doesn't seem to me to be quite right. Redirecting this article to child sexual abuse seems particularly weird when, historically and anthropologically, adult-child sex was considered the norm in many cultures other than our own. Granted, in today's world and in our global culture, there's almost no place adult-child sex is legitimately practiced, but it is quite presumptuous of us to say that adult-child sex is always child sexual abuse. I mean, was Plato sexually abusing his pupils? Is that even a legitimate question to ask? This is clearly a topic that an encyclopedic exposition can be written about from a neutral and non-inflammatory perspective. Certainly child sexual abuse will be mentioned, but there are plenty of reasons to think that there will be more to this subject than simply child sexual abuse. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I'm going to support SA for the reasons he specifies, along with those ow WP Coleman. different aspects of a broad subject are not POV forks. The overall subject, is broad, a matter of frequent and bitter discussion, and certainly controversial. I don't think there is a single person here who truly has a personally neutral and objective view about the practices discussed, and I wouldn't be prepared to advocate that one ought to have such a personal view of them. In the absence of that rare personality who can nonetheless write in a scientific spirit, I think collective editing can deal with this sort of topic. The solution to POV pushing is greater involvement, though I say this with the recognition that I am not going to get involved much in this group of articles myself. DGG (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or maybe merge) While this may have started out of a POV fork, it's perfectly NPOV now. The only problem I can see with it is that at least some of it is duplicate content, so maybe it should be merged and redirected, but the arguments to delete are based on the article's history not the article as it stands today. --Tango (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I agree that "icky" is about the best way to qualify the article contents— but last I checked, the pleasantness of an article's topic is not a factor in deciding to keep it or not. The subject is indeed encyclopedic and quite distinct from child sexual abuse and pedophilia (who discuss specific aspects of sexual contact between adults and non-adults). Should we delete Sport because we have Olympic Games? — Coren ^(talk) 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as POV fork, especially in current state which is not NPOV. No reason why child sexual abuse article cannot consider historial aspects of that abuse. MikeHobday (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point - adult-child sex has not been considered "child sexual abuse" throughout history. In fact, the view that sexual relations between an adult and a child are inherently abusive is a very modern perspective. To state otherwise, is to skew the truth and to deny what was true in the past. Thus, discussing adult-child sex in an article that focuses exclusively on the contemporary take on child sexual abuse is quite inappropriate. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Given that adult-child sex is inherently abusive (and we can hardly write encyclopedia articles from anything other than today's perspective), the fact that it was once considered otherwise might well be a suitable point under the heading of History of thought on child sexual abuse, but does not merit a separate article making that claim as if it were true. MikeHobday (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By only discussing the topic in an article entitled child sexual abuse, we limit ourselves to only considering adult-child sex within one paradigm. In the social sciences, one can either consider a cultural phenomenon from the emic perspective or the etic perspective. Child sexual abuse is an emic view: it only tells us what the topic signifies within the frame of reference of how we look at it now. When we discuss adult-child sex, we bring an etic perspective to the phenomenon: until (roughly) the Victorian era, even our own culture didn't have the concept of children as anything other than small adults, criminally responsible for their own actions and capable of work.
None of this even addresses perspectives outside the West. In some societies, betrothals and marriages take place even among toddlers, and consummated marriages between adults and children as young as 9 or 10 are culturally normal in others.
Does that make any of this non-abusive? Of course not! But, even so, the etic perspective can't be met by only framing what modern Western people think of a topic. That doesn't make the act less abusive; It makes our understanding of it that much greater. --SSBohio 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are agreeing that the act is abusive. Hence there is no POV problem in it beign poart of an article with such a name. You say there are other perspectives (say, historical or from other cultures). So the article could include sections describing/discussing such perspectives. But that does not, in any way, negate the case for deleting this article and including appropriate text within the child sexual abuse article. MikeHobday (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the following reasons ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC):[reply]

The article, as it stands right now, is significantly different from the stub it was when originally created. Thus, arguing that it should be deleted on the grounds that some users suspect the article's initial creator of being a pro-pedophile activist does not provide sufficient reasoning for deletion. Furthermore, such suspicions have never been corroborated, and the fact that the editor that started this article was banned has no weight when considering the legitimacy of keeping the article in its current state. Besides, there is no official evidence to suggest that the editor was banned because of this article's creation. Finally, an editor's personal qualities should not be used against his or her ability to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as no disruptive editing takes place. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is definitely not a POV fork as some allege. Although this issue has been discussed many times before, the following is a brief overview of why it's inappropriate to merge or redirect "Adult-child sex" (ACS) to either "Child sexual abuse" (CSA) or "Pedophilia." ACS deals with sexual interactions between an adult and a child, both in the present and throughout history, presenting the contemporary widely-accepted view of this phenomenon, opposing modern viewpoints, and what perspectives existed in the past. Merging or redirecting to CSA would not work because that article deals almost exclusively with the contemporary popular medical and legal description of CSA. As such, CSA does not address how various peoples and societies viewed ACS during different time periods. Truth be told, the article on CSA cannot deal with such information, because the term "child sexual abuse" is a distinctly modern development, and ACS was not viewed as inherently abuse in times past. Simply put, ACS covers a broader topic than CSA, and thus should be discussed in an article of its own. Likewise, it is inappropriate to discuss ACS in "Pedophilia," because that article focuses on the contemporary medical definition of a mental disorder or paraphilia. A pedophile is defined as someone who is attracted to prepubescent children, and these is no part of the definition that states this person has to engage in ACS in order to be assigned this label. Besides, a pedophile is attracted to only one type of children (prepubescent), so the article on pedophilia cannot be used to discuss ACS in general terms. Finally, it has been established that pedophiles are, by far, not the only adults that engage in ACS. For these reasons, "Adult-child sex" cannot be merged or redirected to either "Child sexual abuse" or "Pedophilia." ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what some editors claim, there has never been consensus to delete, redirect, or merge with another article. It is true that several editors have attempted on a number of occasions to achieve such an end, but their actions were always carried out without any consensus on the matter. The article has been redirected, merged, and almost deleted (through deletion of great chunks of legitimate text) in the past, but this was done contrary to standard Wikipedia procedure. Every time something like this occurred, clear opposition to such changes was seen from many editors, and the article was restored (sometimes by administrators) in some shape or form. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the quality of this article is in question, there's plenty of room for improvement. As long as editors behave in a civil manner, and concerns about content and structure are dealt with according to standard Wikipedia policies, then there's no reason why this article cannot continue to mature and become an exemplary demonstration of what Wikipedia is all about. Blatantly deleting information, without giving others an opportunity to verify the deletions or to respond to claims of poor sourcing, and then redirecting without consensus is definitely not the way to improve this article. Likewise, renaming the article in order to purge huge chunks of it is also quite unfair to both the article and the editors that put in the time to improve the text. The point should be not to delete, redirect, or merge at all costs, or to prune, rename, and then prune some more, but to roll up one's sleeves and try hard to produce a quality product. This does not mean that concerns about sourcing, NPOV, and due weight of viewpoints should be disregarded. On the contrary, a controversial article such as this requires strict scrutiny. However, this does not mean that deletion should be advocated no matter what. If there are legitimate concerns, they should be listed, appropriate templates put into place, and reasonable time given for involved editors to address whatever problems are noticed within the article. Because of some editors' inability or unwillingness to wait for others to respond to radical alterations in the text and concerns over a variety of issues, the article has suffered numerous undue setbacks, which largely explain why the growth and improvement of this piece have halted. Once again, there are many ways in which this article can be improved. Information from prior versions, such as this, can be reincorporated (with proper editing and sourcing) into the article. What's more, a few editors have been working on their own, and sometimes with the assistance of others, on improving the ACS article on Sandbox pages. Two prominent examples can be seen here and here. Sure, extra referencing may be in order, some block quotes need to be paraphrased, and caution must be taken that NPOV and other policies are observed, but isn't this what editing on Wikipedia is all about? In addition to all this, there is plenty of other information out there on the topic of adult-child sex. Let's work towards making this into an article we can be proud of, instead of trying to bury it for no good reason. Besides, this could be a great success just yet, for if Wikipedians can fairly and neutrally treat such a controversial subject, there's pretty much nothing this project can't handle! ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has been through various forms, but its problem remains constant. The current situation is that the Adult-child sex article, despite being sourced, acknowledges the modern majority view as such but spends almost no time at all discussing it. Some of the article deals with a historical perspective or gives background information; that seems okay to me. The rest is a variety of perspectives - sourced ones, yes - designed to highlight as much as possible that might suggest that the "Adult-Child Sex is abusive/wrong/bad" persepctive might be wrong. We have a detailed discussion of Rind et al. (1998), David Finkelhor's statements that most support the minority viewpoint, we have a random out of nowhere quote from a psychiatrist suggesting that our view on the subject is too modern-centric, we highlight the child marriage laws of Yemen, we have a tangent about the sexual practices of Bonobos, and we highlight the extremely marginal French petition against age of consent laws: a collection of topics chosen to highlight the perspective that Adult-child sex is not wrong, or at least to imply that that perspective is as acceptable as its counterpart, despite that being an overwhelming majority viewpoint. Put another way, the article is in argument form: "Many believe X. Some believe Y, because A, B, C, D, and E." This is how you write when you want to question the majority belief. In other words, this article is EXTREMELY out of balance - not a little, not somewhat, but the balance issue is extreme. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The way I see it, this article started, became, and has remained like this while an argument takes place over whether "Child sexual abuse" or "Adult-child sex" is the more reasonable title -- regardless of which is correct, the two articles do in fact cover the same material but from very different points of view. This is why Adult-child sex is a POV fork and must be deleted. These problems could, in theory be fixed by editing the article, but after 3 AfDs and a huge amount of controversy and discussion, the problems remain, so deletion is really the only way to solve the problem. Mango juice^talk 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment succinctly points out the reason why this article should be deleted as POV fork. Also, I think unless anyone has something new to say, this argument is pretty much wrapped up. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The contemporary majority viewpoint is appropriately stated at the very top and is accordingly given more space in the article than anything else. This is what "due weight" within Wikipedia's NPOV policy is all about. If there's a worry that this is not enough information about child sexual abuse, then, by all means, editors are free to propose to expand that section. However, considering that there is an entire separate article on that topic, there doesn't seem to be a point in needlessly duplicating chunks of information. As for your assertion that the text takes a roundabout way of promoting a minority viewpoint, your own reasoning contradicts this claim. You state that it's appropriate to provide historical and background information, but then assert that providing examples of different views on adult-child sex is somehow wrong and disingenuous. The matter of fact is that ACS existed and had viewpoints attached to it long before the coming of the modern era, and perspectives have a tendency to change over time. Pointing out various takes on ACS throughout history is quite fitting for an encyclopedia article on the topic. Likewise, as long as perspectives are attached to their proper sources, there is nothing wrong with briefly stating views that are in opposition to the stance the contemporary majority takes on ACS. Other cultures, outside of the developed countries, as well as scholars in disagreement with mainstream professionals, do indeed have real opinions on matters such as this, and these need to be accounted for. Finally, even if, at some point, the two articles in question need to be merged together - which I maintain would be very inappropriate - CSA should then be merged into ACS, and not the other way around, seeing as the latter incorporates the entire subject matter of the former, and effectively deals with a much broader topic. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mango juice stated it very well. And sure, history, other cultures, and dissenting views can all be presented in the child sexual abuse article, they can and should be addressed. Per WP:NPOV that's where they belong, all in the same article. Not in a POV fork to a misleading title that appears to normalize a fringe theory. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(resp. to Homologeo) What I was trying to say is that some of the historical stuff is okay. Specifically, the part from "Cultures and History" up to the next header is fine. The rest of that section is very badly balanced and it is NOT a cultural discussion nor a historical one. The subsection on "difficulty of researching" seems quite out of place, with a long quote when a citation would do -- and note how the quote plays into the pro-pedophile viewpoint. The subsection on "across cultures" might be okay, but the single example of Yemen doesn't do a good job illustrating the "minority of countries" described earlier. The "Sexuality in other mammals" section is entirely irrelevant, and really pushes things -- it's as if there aren't enough counterexamples to the majority view in history or human culture, so the author has to bring in other species: the link to the issue in humans is completely omitted, and is obviously not a part of this subject. Similarly, the "Legal issues" section is badly out of whack -- it exclusively discusses the same topic as Age of consent and yet it spends nearly half its time on an obscure petition; contrast this with the coverage in Age of consent itself, in which that petition is never mentioned.
My point is that this is not a neutral and reasonable look at the topic, it has some parts that are okay, but it is largely a framework in which to present pro-pedophile activist arguments. As for whether CSA should be merged into ACS or vice versa, bickering over the title and which title goes with which topic is NOT the point -- that is how this extremely out-of-balance article has managed to continue to exist all this time. Myself, I think the best title is Age disparity in sexual relationships, and I recognize the deficiency of the Child sexual abuse title/topic, and yet I would rather have this one deleted now than allow it to exist for another several months in this kind of state, which the last several months of inertia indicate will persist if the issue is not settled. Mango juice^talk 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of the recent points by Mangojuice, Librarianofages, and Jack have been addressed before, so for now I'll keep it briefly at commenting at what Mangojuice calls "a random out of nowhere quote from a psychiatrist". When Feierman authored that quote, he had 20 years of professional experience working with AoC offenders. The book that quote is from, Pedophilia: Biosocial dimensions, was edited and prefaced by him, published by the professional science publishing house Springer-Verlag, while being a collective work by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (publisher of Journal of Sex Research and Annual Review of Sex Research; see for their involvement with this book here, under the headline Researching "Touchy" Sex Topics). "Two dozen" internationally renowned members of the professional SSSS contributed to that book: See complete table of content. The fact that book, as many other works by scientists, "plays into the pro-pedophile viewpoint" comes as no surprise as that which is commonly perceived as a "pro-pedophile viewpoint" is pretty much exclusively existing and on-going scientific material and discourse. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there is no reason to include the quote verbatim. As a reference, I'm sure it is fine. But the inclusion of the full text of the quote manipulates the balance of the article by giving even more space to an argument to broaden our perspective. Remember, my issue here is not at all with sourcing, but with balance, with WP:NPOV. Mango juice^talk 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will not deny that the article is not in its best shape, and that some of its sections could be retitled and reworked. However, that's no reason to condemn the entire piece. Besides, the article is not progressing the way it could be, and is in need of improvement, not because of the subject matter or lack of information on it, but because of a consistent effort on the part of several editors to see this article laid to waste. As pointed out in the reasoning provided for my Keep vote above, there's a great deal of information that can still be incorporated into this article. There are prior versions that have text that can be reincorporated, as well as independent projects by individual editors, where they compiled a great deal of literature appropriate for this topic. As for your claim that this is a piece of pro-pedophile advocacy, I still disagree with you on the grounds explained earlier. Furthermore, the flaws in other articles, such as the lack of information on the French petitions in "Age of consent," does not mean that "Adult-child sex" should also be in poor shape and disregard appropriate important information. Next, to address your concern about the mentioning of practices in Yemen, if this example if not enough, that's the more reason to expand the article, not to delete it. Finally, how is discussion of adult-child sex in other mammals irrelevant to an article on exactly that - adult-child sex? Or would you rather split this article into two - "Adult-child sex (among humans)" and "Adult-child sex (among non-human mammals)"? ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, correct, if the article is not deleted, the animal info should be removed. That's not a POV fork, animals don't have "children" and their behavior doesn't belong in an article about human sexuality... the topic you mentioned can be found here: Animal sexual behaviour#Sex between adults and juveniles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course, this has to be the first topic that can be legitimately included in more than one article. (Please don't be offended by the sarcasm.) Besides, who said the ACS article should be limited to human sexuality? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Jack, that issue was done weeks ago, and we settled it by a consensus to rename the article to Adult-juvenile sex, a consensus even Squeak could live with. That particular section in Animal sexual behavior could even link to our main article thereby if we'd just get this whole thing done. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to improving the article, all I can say is this: this article has such severe inertia issues that I just don't believe my points will be addressed by normal editing. The balance issues have been present in the article from day one and attempts to edit the article, and AfD discussions have not corrected it. When this article was nominated for deletion it was in a different form, that was also far out of balance. When the article was nominated for deletion last time, it was in yet another different form, still with severe balance issues. Mango juice^talk 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But I think this is a blatant case of an article that literally is in accordance with all Wikipedia policies, but which we'd really like to delete. I would suggest just deleting it under Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Trying to come up with contrived explanations for why it really violates the rules is going to do a lot of collateral damage as it sets ver bad precedents for other articles. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just ignore the NPOV rule and leave it the way it is? Ospinad (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(that was supposed to be a joke)

Thanks for admitting it isn't neutral right now. And of course IAR isnt about making the encycl;opedia worse by pushing a point of view. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no admission of any such thing in the above, Squeak. Why invent it? --SSBohio 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded like if we don't ignore NPOV we will have to do something about it, as I stated in my opening comment as nominator. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion(?), Squeak, I wasn't asking about your opening comment as nominator. I was asking why you invented an admission that didn't exist in the comment you were responding to. --SSBohio 02:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we misunderstood each other. I am saying that it sounds to me as if Ospinad were saying that we should ignore NPOV, that way we can leave the article be as a POV fork whereas I think we can't leave this POV fork be which is why I have afd'd it and indeed opposed its existence since its inception. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone wouldn't get the joke. I didn't say that I believed the article was a POV fork. I was responding to the person who wanted to ignore all the rules and just have this article deleted.. If someone who believes this article is a POV fork is willing to ignore all rules to get this article deleted because they can't get it deleted by following the rules, then does that mean we can pick and choose which rules we can ignore? If so then why can't we just ignore the NPOV rule (which you think this article violates, not me) and just leave it the way it is? It was meant to be sarcastic. It doesn't matter anyway, because I know I can count on you to keep nominating this article for AfD until you get your way. Ospinad (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only pedophiles call it "adult-child sex". No way anyone else calls it that! Why would they? I followed the links to Pro-pedophile activism and it says that pedophile organizations use "strategies to promote public acceptance of pedophilia or the legalization of adult-child sex". Don't let that happen here! --Linda (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I've argued before, this article is a WP:POVFORK of child sexual abuse, and no amount of improvement to the article will change that. Quite simply, 'adult-child sex' is just another name for child sexual abuse, but it is only used by fringe groups, principally pro-paedophile activists, and that still shows through in the article. The mainstream view is that there is no such thing as adult-child sex which is not inherently abusive (or, some argue, that there is no such thing as 'adult-child sex' at all), and that is what NPOV demands we reflect. Attempting to rewrite this article won't make it neutral; the very subject is inherently non-neutral, and it always will be. To quote from what I said before:

"To those who think this article is acceptable: would you support the existence of an article about rape entitled 'Nonconsensual sex'? Or one about murder entitled 'Unlawful ending of human life'? Those are equivalents to this article: they have what at first appear to be 'neutral', descriptive titles, but would in fact be POV forks, since the material they would contain is already covered under better titles at rape and murder. This article is no different, and as such it should be deleted and redirected to child sexual abuse."

There has been plenty of discussion since then, but that point still stands. Delete. Terraxos (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-direct to child sexual abuse, per SqueakBox & Terraxos. pov fork. --Avinesh Jose T 10:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment in response to terraxos' point - rape doesn't equal non-consensual sex in this analogy, but surprise sex. How POV it is for us to suggest rape is always non-consensual or unpleasant:) :( Merkinsmum 11:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. There may also be a small number of people alive today who believe in bloodlettings. Those people could point to centuries of medical literature that supported bloodlettings, and bloodlettings certinaly were practiced in many cultures for a very long time. NPOV refers to current consensus, not the average of all expert opinions across history. Durova^Charge! 12:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic has already been covered in the other articles, and it appears that it's existence as a separate article is could be used by pedophile-activists as part of a strategy to "normalize" the idea that "adult-child sex"' is OK. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. POV fork. Resolute 14:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We've already estalblished that a large number of scientists use Adult-child sex, not even counting the many derivations of it, such as child-adult sexual interactions. About all those people stubbornly trying to link "by nature" this article to anything violent, coercive, painful, or anything unpleasant to those people actually involved, I've made two posts regarding the cultural and mythological origins of such irrational paranoias relating to sexual deviance here and here. Just thought I'd let people know they won't get away with such unreliable and irrelevant, unscientific, perennially ahistorical (by stubbornly confusing nature, nurture, and culture), anti-intellectual, and ethnocentric morality. Not even personal bad experience is an excuse for such sweeping generalizations even if such generalization are demanded by ethnocentric, i. e. moral, values and are therefore internalized since very early in life, often enough by brute force. See Authoritarian personality, F-scale, and Right-wing Authoritarianism. And yes, Theodor Adorno, the scientist and scholar that originated research into the authoritarian personality, even went so far to publically argue for legalization of all adult-child sex based upon simple consent exactly because of that research as we've established already a few weeks ago on the talkpage to Adult-child sex. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill with fire POV fork; Wikipedia articles should very rarely be entirely composites that link to main pages Will ^(talk) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per krimpet. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Folk - just because some good faith editors have been taken in by childabusers trying to forward their agenda doesn't mean that we should allow such an article to stand. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John's simple explanation: "I don't agree this is a POV fork. Seems reasonable as an article in its own right." нмŵוτн τ 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Child sexual abuse and other articles within Human sexuality. This is a POV fork for those who want to push an agenda. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork propaganda page. Redirect to Child sexual abuse. --Tikilounge (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment NPOV applies no matter now much we dislike the subject of the article or those involved in it. there is no basis in policy for removing the article, just editing it. 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rape versus Non-consensual sex. Which is more NPOV? Remember, NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View, not No Point of View. We are not required to check our brains at the door. Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is non-encylopedic, as it does not refer to any meaningful category of sociological activity. the title "sexual activity of minors" might be better, but only very minutely. how about "sex with gambling addicts", "sex with service workers" "sex with employees"? articles must refer to encylopedic topics, not various instances of vice and human extreme conduct. how about similar topics for eating? we could have "eating snails" or even "dancing around with a coatrack and pretending you're Fred Astaire at your office party". I say delete this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what difference does it make if some cultures accepted it? some cultures also accepted making people fight animals for entertainment. but we would not have recreational staging of human death as an overview of a whole category of human activity; what we 'might have is articles for specific instances, such as gladitorial games in ancient Rome, etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. This is acting as an umbrella title for information that should be in other areas - child sex abuse, pedophilia, age of consent etc. As one article, it seems to be used as a platform for tendentious editing. WjBscribe 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

closed as Withdrawn - notability established, and advertising content less prevelant Mayalld (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Skills

Delete Blatant advertising Mayalld (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work and needs some trimming to remove some tidbits. I have never heard of them before but it is notable and I easily found tons of sources from all over the globe:

http://www.korea.net/News/News/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20071122032
http://www.kkr.gov.my/kkrportal/kkrportal?cid=News
http://www.icvet.tafensw.edu.au/ezine/year_2007/jul/interview_callaghan.htm
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/education/2007/11/756366/
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-and-tees-valley/teesside-and-tees-valley-news/2007/05/08/bid-for-best-in-japan-84229-19064996/

Those were just a few I found in about 30 seconds of googling for just the 2007 event. There is every reason to fix the current article, which was just started an hour ago. The organization easily passes notability requirements here, however, and shouldn't be deleted. Pharmboy (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unclear what this article is supposed to be advertising. This is describing an international competition that has existed for over 50 years, that needs to be cleaned up and expanded, not deleted. The pattern of abusive use of speedy deletion (one minute after creation) and AfD (eight minutes after creation) of an article that makes a rather clear claim of notability is continuing a pattern of violations of Wikipedia:deletion policy. This disruptive practice must be put to an end, once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What needs to be put a stop to is your continuing incivility, refusal to assume good faith and false accusations of breaching policy (problems that it is clear I'm not the only one to have noticed). We are clearly at opposite ends of the Inclusionist/Deletionist spectrum, but I don't run round making vexatious claims of breach of policy every time you weigh in to oppose a deletion for no reason other than that I have supported deletion. It is healthy that wikipedians should debate deletions robustly. It is profoundly unhealthy that anybody should seek by their actions to discourage those who disagree with them from joining in the debate. Mayalld (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Inclusionism/Deletionism. My issue is with your persistent refusal to show the barest shred of good faith to those who create articles you don't care for. Your obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy to make legitimate efforts to research, edit, expand or merge articles are rather clear, and you cannot have exercised these responsibilities in the minute it took you to add the prod tag, nor does it appear that the seven minutes you spent forming the AfD entailed any effort at improving the article. If you fire several dozen shotgun rounds into a bank during a robbery, you will be very likely to kill most of the robbers. It's the innocent bystanders you keep on managing to try to kill that you ought to be far more concerned about and that has raised significant issues on my part and on that of many other editors. Your track record of abusing the speedy deletion and AfD processes must be put to an end. Alansohn (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no evidence of killing any innocent bystanders. Some AfDs result in a deletion outcome, some in a keep outcome, some in a keep outcome and an improved article. You choose to interpret policies in your own way, and act as sole judge of whether people have done enough to fulfil your requirements, which are exacting, because your inclusionism is such that you want to make it difficult to bring an AfD in the first place (rather than argue the specific case). You claim that I have raised significant issues on the part of many editors. May I congratulate you on your apparent appointment as their spokesman. Might I suggest that you concentrate on addressing your own issues with incivility that so many editors have stated they have a problem with. Mayalld (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as Pharmboy demonstrated. I also see no advertising.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)

POV fork of Franco-Mongol alliance, which has accuracy and NPOV disputes. I think this is obvious from the title. You can't have a neutral article by separating out the opinions of modern historians on the event. The master article needs to give due weight to historical analysis from all period to achieve a neutral article. WjBscribe 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a useless elaboration of the Franco-Mongol alliance pseudo-history that has been based on misinterpretation of sources and tendentious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is just a POV fork which was created to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, such as the concerns about misinterpretation of sources, and the use of unreliable sources. For example, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 3#Concerns about Dailliez, where several editors raised concerns about the use of controversial quotes by historian Laurent Dailliez. PHG edit-warred to keep those quotes in the article, and then when it was obvious that there was consensus on the talkpage to remove the information, instead of abiding by consensus, PHG just created this "modern interpretations" POV fork. It, and the several other POV forks he has created, should be deleted. --El on ka 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jehochman and Elonka. That which has been rejected through consensus at Franco-Mongol alliance winds up here. Basta! Aramgar (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the merge proviso that any information here which is useful ought to be in the Franco-Mongol alliance article and I wish no information to be lost by deletion. That said, a separate article on "modern interpretations" of anything is unnecessary and not "Wikipedian". Srnec (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole page has been developed cooperatively between Elonka and myself essentially, listing the various academic interpretations on the issue. It was also usefull to have this article to reduce the size of the main article. PHG (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this page was not developed cooperatively, and if you'll look up a few sentences, you'll see that I want it deleted too. --Elonka 08:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me remind you that most of this content was created by you Elonka: the second half Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)#Reasons for failure, and most of the quotes. When you insisted on keeping this material (I had deleted it once as I thought it was just an essay), I only added quotes presenting the other point of view as well. PHG (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge back into the main article. This is useless if it is a separate article. In fact the main article should focus more on this and less on the mishmash of info that currently exists. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that some of the content in this article appears to have been taken out of the main article by consensus. If that is the case, the material should be removed rather than merged. Creating a POV fork is not the way to circumvent consensus. Any merger should be done by an uninvolved party who has familiarized themselves with past discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PHG is one of the most tendentious editors I have come across. All this behavior expands to an unmanageable proportion the ridiculous material he has been adding for some time now. john k (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure how to describe the page, but it certainly isn't encyclopedic. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge these back into the main article until disputes are resolved. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A content dispute is not a cause for a deletion of a well referenced article with a potential for more expansion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thug Murder

Wikipedia:Notability (music) Criteria C4 states "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources." First, the article does not cite a reliable source for the tours, and second, the international tour criteria is disputed. Cagey Millipede (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been around for almost 2 years and no one has produced sources, which indicate they probably don't exist. Pharmboy (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article meets WP:MUSIC#C4. While that stays on the main WP:MUSIC page, this article remains notable. They've also released two albums. Here's a source for the tours, as requested by nom and Pharmboy. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You cannot judge a book by its cover, but the link to synthesis.net does not project an image of reliability (not that I doubt Thug Murder played the show). Also, the article mentions that they played in a show, which seems different than going on tour. Could you provide a quote that says this was part of a tour? Thanks. CM (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As nominator mentioned, they have had an international tour. The fact that some people aren't happy with the way the guideline is worded is irrelevant. I've added some sources. It's a borderline case, but I say they're just notable enough. faithless (^speak) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Faithlessthewonderboy. And you deserve some recognition for your work sir. CM (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mulay

Sources from the period include the names of many hundred Mongol commanders - it is difficult to see why we should have an article on one rather than the others when there is little to be said about the general. The article is mainly a copy of content from other articles about the battles detailed - see for example Mongol raids into Palestine, Franco-Mongol alliance and Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). This article just serves to replicate details already in other articles under a new title - very little discusses the specific general. It does not help that the accuracy and neutrality of the material is disputed at Franco-Mongol alliance. The material's spread across many articles seems to make it increasingly difficult for editors to arrive at a consensus on what content Wikipedia should have about these events and how best to factually and neutrally represent them. WjBscribe 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of the Mongol Alliance walled garden of pseudo-history. Wikipedia is for facts, not fictions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jehochman. This is all highly referenced material, and an attempt to integrate most of what is known on the subject. This has nothing to do with fiction. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; sorry PHG, as I said this should be an article about Mulay, not the battle. Until you find those sources to talk about Mulay, we should keep this off the main article space. Merge back to the alliance articles for now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have intergated more biographical information and will keep looking for what's available. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete all the battle related and non-Mulay related information and merge back into the main article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am extremely familiar with this period of history, and though Mulay was indeed a Mongol general, there is very little known about him, and all we have are some passing mentions of his name, along with passing mentions of many other Mongol generals as well. There's not enough biographical information to create a separate article. The main purpose of this article seems to just be as a WP:COATRACK, as a shell to contain some biased WP:POVFORK information, in an attempt to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)~[reply]
- Untrue. This is all highly referenced material, and an attempt to integrate most of what is known on the subject.PHG (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is part of the protracted dispute at Franco-Mongol alliance. There are no biographical data on Mulay, while significant commanders under Ghazan Mahmud for whom we do possess information (e.g. Nawruz) do not even have stubs. Whatever scraps we have about Mulay ought to go to Mongol raids into Palestine (which incidentally has also been infected by Franco-Mongol wishful thinking). Aramgar (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nawruz has his own article here: Nawrūz. I created it 6 weeks ago in my attempt to have more info on Mongol generals/emirs. Regards, PHG (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a biographical entry which deserves a place. I see no reason why the article could not possibly be altered in the future to be more biographical. Unlike the other pages nominated as part of this same dispute, this article at least deserves a place in theory and so I strongly suggest we keep it. I have no problem with articles on any Mongol general for whom there are a few passing references, so long as it is encyclopaedic and well-sourced. Many figures get articles on just as slim primary sources. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a Biographical article on a well-known Mongol general. There is no resean whatsover to delete this article, as already stated by several editors who are highly knowledgeable of this subject (Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine). PHG (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject that can be expanded further.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it should probably be pruned down a bit to lose some of the unneeded/unused sources and the unneeded original source quotations. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article helps to clarify the distinction between its subject and Jacques de Molay.Wageless (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — Wageless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Golden Sun Nakon 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weyard

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a massive in-universe plot repetition of information already found in the two Golden Sun game articles. This is therefore total duplication and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm the user who originally constructed the page and maintained it for pretty much the past two years, but at the time I made the page the public's general viewpoint on how Wikipedia articles should ideally be wasn't fully set in stone yet so I used to think the page was okay. Fortunately there's a Wikia wiki on Golden Sun, and the good parts of this page have already been moved over there by someone else. :) I'll not mind at all if this is deleted (though it should definitely be made a redirect to the main articles). Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: Don't this to get deleted so I will transwiki it to egamia a gaming wiki. --Cs california (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Elder Scrolls Nakon 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls Construction Set

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and doesn't warrant a whole article, could be mentioned in one-two sentences in the other Elder Scrolls articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Elder Scrolls or a related article. - Koweja (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassettes Won't Listen

AfDs for this article:

Fails to meet notability criteria per band WP:BAND. Was recently speedied under A7, but was recreated on the basis of it being kept under the previous AFD. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This one is borderline. The Spin and Billboard references provided in the article are valid, but are very minor. Would be better with some more substantial sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources meet WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources out just fine. Physical media isn't the test to pass notability, reliable sources is. Pharmboy (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Goto (actress)

Non-notable actress. Not even any assertion of notability in this article, but previous prod was declined, so bringing it here for discussion. Complete lack of coverage in WP:RS, so this person fails WP:BIO. Valrith (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ——Quasirandom (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She did have a role in Ichi the Killer, which seems to be a notable film. Whether or not she is notable I'm not sure of yet. Pburka (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral ~~no evidence of~~ unable to evaluate notability. JJL (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Japanese sources linked list abotu a dozen film roles, aside from her own DVDs. What notability she has is not being asserted very well in this article. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If she's notable enough for Yahoo[17], she should be notable enough for Wikipedia. According to Yahoo, in addition to the movie, tv, and dvd credits, she is named in the title of a TV show (loosely translated as "Goto Mai's 'I like Wine'", of which I can't find very much info about), and also in the title of at least one book published in Japan. Neier (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of articles just like that on other East Asian celebrities. However, the style of writing is often excessively wordy or requires cleanup in one way or another: this is due to the fact that most East Asians speak their native tongue ten times better than English and so this limits them in a way. Many are still bound to tradition and whatnot, although they're trying really hard to become modernized. Also in East Asian languages (or at least Chinese and Japanese, as far as I'm concerned) they tend to use a lot of terms that are detailed and make perfect sense to any other native speaker, however when translated to English the words just seem to be backwards or too detailed because English lacks some of the terms they use in their native tongue. But back on track, people who contributed to that article probably wanted to write more about Goto but weren't sure how to do it. I think that we just need to find a few sources and write more for it. If we deleted it it would be a waste, and there's nowhere to merge it to. ― LADY GALAXY 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This model/actress is fairly well known to Western fans of Asian pop. (I don't know whether she is actually well known in Asia itself.) —SlamDiego_←T 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She must be well known in Asia too. All of the Asian pop stars that Western fans like, they're even bigger in Asia. ― LADY GALAXY 05:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably. But I note that sometimes one has a Rula Lenska — someone made in country B to seem to be a bigger star in country A that (s)he really is. —SlamDiego_←T 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time it doesn't work like that. But Leah Dizon is one example of what you just described. ― LADY GALAXY 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G7 by Fabrictramp. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan V. Smith, Ph.D

Re-creation of an article deleted twice previously, and at leat one of those was writen by Smith. Edit summary indicates that Smith had someone write the article on his behalf, something which that author has since admitted. Self-promotional, only primary sources cited. Salting might be an option, given Smith's previous actions. Note also that Smith is the main author of Hedonic damages, a legal principle which he claims to have introduced; I would have submitted that for AfD, but that principle does seem to be widely recognized, so I tagged it for COI and primary-sources issues instead. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not salt this page? I will explain to Stan that he is not to try to re-create it and it instead needs to be written by a neutral third party. Kwarnimo (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete ~~and Salt~~ for recreation of previously deleted material. Pharmboy (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I reiterate my request to not have this page salted? I have talked to Stan and he understands the idea that this needs to be a neutral article written by neither him nor me. After talking with Realkyhick I understand what needs to be done, and apologize for any inconvenience my actions may have caused to the Wikipedia community. Kwarnimo (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that him getting a 3rd party to write the article is still a conflict of interest. I struck my salt request, but there is still the question of notability (which may just be a matter of proper sources) and the conflict of interest when someone close to him (friend, aquantance, employee) writes the article. In any event, I would STRONGLY suggest that whoever writes the article do some significant reading of the policies and learning what is appropriate in the Manual of Style, and even look at similar articles before they begin. Then we don't have to do this again. Pharmboy (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note, this isn't eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material. One delete was because it was a duplication of another article (which has since been deleted through a prod, the other delete was an expired prod. Neither deletion fits the criteria of G4. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on salting / name of article It doesn't seem like the article meets the current naming guidelines. If and when the article is recreated, it should be as Stan V. Smith or Stan Smith (economist), rather than recreating under Stan V. Smith, Ph.D. (If the article is kept, it should be move to one of the other two names mentioned.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be an acceptable course of action to change the link in the hedonic damages article to point to Stan Smith (economist) and basically let this page die? This way the current controversy over self authoring / whatnot will be satisfied, and if in the future a 3rd party wants to research and write an un-biased article about Stan it can proceed on a fresh page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwarnimo (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G1 by Orangemike. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1904 Ethereal defense of Germany

I deleted this as utter nonsense. Earth was saved from a Demonic invasion in a climactic battle in Germany when the Mages's leader, Conrad Böcker, the gymnist, (note edit history and here) brought a Dragon into the picture. User_:Dustihowe asserts I was overly hasty. I could not find anything on the web about it, but confess profound ignorance of many things. In hopes that this about some fictional Dungeons & Dragonsesque story line battle, I bring it here. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 19:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is obvious nonsense. At the time this battle supposedly occurred, we were all in the giant Space Ark several billion light years from Earth. Everyone knows that. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. Righty-O. Better go take my Aricept.20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense, and easily could have been so tagged. Xymmax (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - That was the original attempt, but someone wanted to save it because it's "history" ... or something. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so it was deleted. Then I thought, "Damn, Mike, you don't know everything. What if this is some fictional universe story line thing, and the creator just did not know how to make that clear. It could be notable and significant as say Pokeman. Better AfD it." Dloh cierekim 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WODUP 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Stone

Delete NN actress who has played only minor roles, and consequently doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO Mayalld (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - review of roles listed in IMDB do not show any notable roles. A search for press coverage shows only one mention. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a small amount of coverage of her Edinburgh Fringe work (one show was described by the Guardian as having "no reviews, no audience and no hope of ever making any money"), but on the whole I don't think this is the CV of someone who has a notable body of work behind them. --Kife 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sam & Max Hit the Road... No? OK, Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Tevildo (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge with Global warming game Nakon 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logicity

Contested speedy deletion. Deleted twice in a 5 month time period, under A7 for failing to provide a sufficient enough reason for keeping it. I'd probably also suggest that the user who created it, [18] appears to have a conflict of interest regarding this, with at least 2 notices for the page on his usertalk space. The article itself doesn't provide any real sort of notability (with web searches not returning much either) and its content is asserted in a promotional tone. Although, I do commend the efforts by Petrolmaps. I'll be open to a withdrawal if their is consensus to keep at this moment in time. Rudget . 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Logicity article was deleted 5 months ago for good reason, as the game had not been released yet. I decieded to reinstate the article on the 17th of January as it has now been released. There will not be much information in web searhces as it hasn't been given time to circulate the search engines yet. The article is not meant for promotion, but to simply give readers more information on the game, as the other six Global warming games have done so. Darrenackers (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (Ignore this and please see further down) Without information such as reception there is no viable article, but without reliable secondary sources that information cannot be verified and is therefore subject to removal, leaving the article as nothing more than a description of the game - back to square one. Searching google news/web/scholar/books produces a couple of sources which repeat a single source, a very short blog post from New Scientist, which is now cited in the article. It's nowhere near enough for an article according to the notability standard. Fully support recreation if sources appear but they should come first. The other alternative is a merge to Defra or somewhere similar. Someone another 10:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course, it could just be merged and redirected to Global warming game - the issue has gained some currency but it's not like there's going to be a thousand games about global warming, its inclusion there is perfectly relevant. Any better? Someone another 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global warming game The problem with notability has only arisen because it's been split into a separate article, "heeeere I am, ha ha ha", meaning that multiple angles need to be explored and multiple reliable and non-trivial sources have become necessary. They aren't out there, so we deal.. What is it? Why was it created? Who created it? < answer those questions neutrally and cite them within Global warming game and chop the rest. On to the next similar game, demonstrate notability or merge/delete. Problem solved. Someone another 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zakythos

short article with little or no content lacking sufficient context. Cagey Millipede (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say delete this unless it can be sourced. Article title sems to be a simple (or intentional) misspelling, and article content, what there is of it, fails WP:V without a cited ref (I can't find any). This supposed eponym is also mentioned in Flag of Zakynthos, which should be revised if the decision here is to delete. Deor (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to show that this is an accepted alternate name for Zakynthos. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms we need references that show usage. A search of Greek Google for Ζάκυνθος (in Greek letters) gets 97,600 hits. A search for Ζάκυθος gets only 10 hits, one of which is clearly a misspelling (on the home page of a Zakynthos newspaper, which is spelled properly as Zakynthos in the masthead). The unusual spelling has no support as being legitimate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khaos Chronicles: When the Gods Were Young

Non-notable book, from non-notable author. Prod tag removed by creator, sending to AfD as procedure Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doubly non-notable as it was published by iUniverse, a self-publisher. GlassCobra 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Łuczak

Speedy deletion was refused because "asserts some notability", this being, I believe, his being "one of the most meritorious people" for his 15000-inhabitants town. Apart from this, he works, as most of us do. Goochelaar (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references found to substantiate even local prominence in Żnin, let alone more widespread notability.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Patterson (comedian)

I contested the speedy deletion (per A7) of this article. Sending to AfD instead. I am Switzerland on notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sourced better - It needs 3rd party sources and a strong rewrite, but I did see his performance on Just for Laughs and assuming he did tour Ireland, that would seem to satisfy the notability requirements. Torc2 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced better is exactly what I was going to say. Third-party sources are needed here. He was nominated for best male stand-up at the Canadian Comedy Awards last year as well [19]. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- clear notability, just needs sourcing. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 16:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak speedy/snowball keep CSD A7 is weak here. No plausible reason to delete, no plausible rationale for deletion. But definitely get more/better refs. --Thin boy 00 @219, i.e. 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our biographical articles should reflect what sources have written about the subject, not simply material that the subject publishes about himself. I couldn't find any reliable sources. User:Flowerpotman mentioned the Canadian Comedy Awards, but except for the fact that he was a nominee for some award, I could find nothing more. His name is not found in our article on those awards. He is said to have published humor in the Toronto Star, but I didn't find anything by him in a search. If he has performed a lot, you would expect to find some newspaper reviews of his shows. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ooops. My bad, I forgot to add the link to the article that I originally referred to, where he is only mentioned in passing, although that is confirmed by the program page of the radio show he hosts for CBC Radio. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is actually mentioned in the Canadian Comedy Awards 2007 article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vyazka

There is no town by this name in Pskov Oblast. There are two villages called "Vyazka", but the information in the article is insufficient to determine which one of the two is meant. The article in its present form fails the "sufficient context" requirement and is named incorrectly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is sufficient context to demonstrate that they are talking about a village. If there is confusion as to which one, then that needs to be fixed, not deleted. I had the same problem with Wylie, Texas since there are TWO towns called Wylie in Texas, necessitating the creation of Wylie Township, Texas. All places are automatically notable. Article needs fixing, not deleting. Pharmboy (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, how would you fix it? I, for example, can easily create two stubs about both Vyazkas (and under proper titles, too). Problem is, nothing from this stub would be transferred to either one of those two articles, because it is impossible to determine which one is actually meant. In other words—the context is obviously insufficient. The bottom line: if someone manages to miraculously fix this one-liner, that'd be swell, otherwise it should go as all it does is mis-informs readers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the other: You would differentiate and rename to differentiate if needed. Because there is a place with this name that exists, it is automatically notable and shouldn't be subject to deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the problem—we can't rename it... because we don't know which place it is and have no means of determining that based on the available information! No one argues that all places are automatically notable—the problem is not with notability, but with lack of context. Verifiability always overrides notability (automatic or not).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksino

There is no town by this name in Pskov Oblast. There are nine villages called "Aleksino", but the information in the article is insufficient to determine which one of the nine is meant. The article in its present form fails the "sufficient context" requirement.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above, all places are notable, article needs fixing not deleting. Pharmboy (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, how would you fix it? I, for example, can easily create nine stubs about all Aleksinos (and under proper titles, too). Problem is, nothing from this stub would be transferred to either one of those articles, because it is impossible to determine which one is actually meant. In other words—the context is obviously insufficient. The bottom line: if someone manages to miraculously fix this one-liner, that'd be swell, otherwise it should go as all it does is mis-informs readers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would differentiate and rename to differentiate if needed. Because there is a place with this name that exists, it is automatically notable and shouldn't be subject to deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the problem—we can't rename it... because we don't know which place it is and have no means of determining that based on the available information! No one argues that all places are automatically notable—the problem is not with notability, but with lack of context.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said to differentiate it first. I am pretty sure that as long as the place actually exists and the information is accurate for one of the places that has this name (and that hasn't been established, only claimed), then you CANT delete. Context is met as it is naming a town, locating its larger geographic area (in general) and stating a population. That is all you need to provide context for a place. Pharmboy (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to say is that all of the information in the article applies to all nine of the places equally; it is impossible to say for sure which one is actually meant. The stub is just too vague and unspecific to help in making a decision.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my points, and arguing them further isn't productive. I suggest you wait and see what others think. Pharmboy (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call this an argument. You have not properly addressed any of the arguments I set forth in the nom and during the discussion. Your points (all places are notable; articles should be improved, not deleted) are not at all being contested here; I 100% share these views with you. The article is proposed for deletion based on a set of criteria completely different from these points.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, I couldn't find any evidence that this place exists in that area per google maps. The only place I found is in Ukraine, which should replace this content. Secret ^account 04:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite Secret's note: Google Maps isn't everything. Keep, too, despite comments above: there's nothing wrong with having it as somewhat of a disambiguation page, and since Ezhiki apparently has a source for all 9 towns, this can be useful as a little page about all of them. Nyttend (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G7 - author blanked the page. Pedro : Chat 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden cockerel crafts

This appears to be an advertisement. Also, the creator simply blanked the page right after creating it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne McGinty

Three months of a notability tag yielded no activity on this page. Only after a PROD tag had been added was there any attempt to remedy its WP:MUSIC deficiencies, and the added sources are unsatisfactory for determining notability. Source 1 grants Miss McGinty a single sentence detailing information that doesn't satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Her entry under Source 2 is modest, and is possibly appropriate for Criteria 6 for Composers and Lyricists. However, she does not appear in other music encyclopedias like New Grove, The Harvard Dictionary or Garland, which offer articles to other major band composers such as Vincent Persichetti and John Barnes Chance. She also does not appear in what would seem to be the only other major band-specifc encyclopedia, Band Encyclopedia by Band Associates. Accordingly, I consider this one entry insufficient for Criteria 6 for Composers and Lyricists.

Given the article's current failure to meet WP:MUSIC and the lack of regular attention heretofore, I propose that this article be deleted. SingCal (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC isn't quite as clear on this as it is on, say, garage bands, but I don't think this article passes, especially as written. Google News results return mostly other unrelated people of the same name, plus a handful of notices that a school band would perform something she wrote as part of a program. Doesn't seem to be any reliable sources where she herself is the primary subject, at least not that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This composer is mentioned in at least a couple of books. That satisfies notability to my view anyway.
- Comment But as I said, the length at which she's actually discussed in the books is questionable. Yes, she appears in two books; but she doesn't appear in any major music encyclopedias, and one of her appearances is only a sentence long. Which criteria of WP:Music would you argue her presence in these books satisfies? SingCal (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark metal

Genre that doesn't quite seems to exist. Seems to be a generic term for bands that don't quite fit in other categories. I admit that I have used the term before, but there seems to be no universal definition- the only real source is the reasonably dubious doom-metal.com, which states "Dark-metal can have many meanings. It is often used to describe, as the name might indicate, dark music within the metal genre." Which seems to imply that even they don't really have a definition. I am aware of how much the term is actually used, but don't believe there is actually anything concrete we can say in an article. The current article seems to be mostly original research. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first sentence says it all, it's a subjective term. Appears to have been coined by a single band as their album title, not as a genre. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a common or notable genre name used within heavy metal music. The article appears to be original research. Mh29255 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see anything wrong with having such article here.There are many bands that mix so much genres and it's easier just to call them dark metal.And also - in the metal-archives there are quite a lot bands called "dark metal" and doom-metal.com lists dark metal as important subgenre. So, face the truth - it should be kept.Yeah the article's badly written but this is not a reason to delete it.So keep it! Xr 1 (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have failed to actually address my main concerns with the article. The the fact you believe it is harmless is irrelevent, and in any case, it is doing harm, as the link explains. We know many bands do mix these genres, but that does not justify original research. Metal-archives is unreliable, especially for contentious issues such as genre, and doom-metal.com mentions it, yes, but even admits that there isn't a concrete definition, plus its status of being a reliable source could be debated. I admit that being badly written is not a good reason to delete- but a good article couldn't be written on this topic, as far as I see. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

metal-archives is the biggest internet source about heavy metal bands and music and as far as I can see it is much realiable than wikipedia... why don't you just accept that the genre should be definited just as a mix of many influences,and metal styles? I mean, do you really can put Shade Empire or Allgaloch in just one category?And..doing harm? hmm I do not see anithing that harms me in that article -It does not give untrue information.Yeah, it needs a research for sources and information, but there's nothing that can proove that everything wirtten there is fake.And please do not argue with me, everyone has an opinion, and should express it here.Finally the article would be deleted if more people think this is right, not if you defete your theory so pationately. If you want to say something else to me - post it in my talk page. Xr 1 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to points made on talk page, so as not to clutter the debate. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets put it in that way - Here is my point why the article should be kept: The avant-garde style plays more and more important role and many bands start using untypical for metal music song structures, instruments etc. Styles such as black metal and gothic metal are one of the most popular genres of metal music.I mean - goth metal was created at about ten years ago and now there are so many bands playing that style.And black metal has increased its popularity in recent times.And may be because of that there are quite a lot (mostly new) bands mixing the two styles. Electronic music have become really popular, and typical for electronic music instruments are now used in many music genres.Metal is not an exception.Much metal bands have used (dark)ambient,industrial,neo-classical,darkwave sounds.And some typical for these styles projects are popular within the metal comunity. As you can see there is a new wave in the metal music, wave of mixing different syles and influences. And dark metal is a much bigger mix, mix of all that.In a few years I'm absolutely sure much more bands would be labelled as Dark Metal. Yeah at this time the article is badly written, but give it a shot it could be re-written Xr 1 (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much you argue that this genre should or even does exist, it is entirely original research. Show us reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, entirely original research with no verifiable and reliable sources. Second, this genre does not exist. I would like to thank the nominator for taking care of this delicate AfD. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here are some sources I've found:

Dark Metal:

[20], [21] [22], [23], [24]about the popularity of gothic metal:[25],[26],[27],[28];about the popularity of black metal:[29],[30],[31],[32]; about avant-garde metal:[33],[34],[35],[36];popularity of ambient/darkwave/electro in the metal comunity:[37][38], [39], [40], [41]

modern metal bands usually combine traits from two-three and even more styles.I don't think this needs a source.

I guess this prooves what I've said. Xr 1 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each link in turn...
1. List of bands- not an article. Not a reliable source.
2. Ditto. The closest thing that site has to an article on the topic calls it subjective, as we have discussed at length.
3. Ditto the first.
4. Ditto again.
5. Message board post. About the least reliable thing in the world.

The rest are irrelevent- they don't even mention 'dark metal'. What do these links prove, exactly? J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion I shared about the metal future!Didn't you read the small letters above? As I said - there is a new wave of mixing styles etc... and these and these styles have gaind much popularity and thus they would be mixed, and this mixture is called dark metal etc...
And yes - this is list for bands labelled as dark metal.If they are not dark metal then what are they? gothhic-doom-blac-avant/gard-electro? - that is dark metal.

Xr 1 (talk)

Most of them fall into the metal subgenres of black metal, doom metal, death metal. They are often sitting between two subgenres, but they are definitely not "dark metal". Zouavman Le Zouave 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict) Maybe they are dark metal, maybe they aren't- I don't really care. Just because the genre exists, doesn't mean that we can have an article. We can't have an article without reliable sources, it's as simple as that. Yeah, maybe those sources do share your view about the direction of metal- that's wonderful, but they say nothing about 'dark metal', so how you intend to use them to show that it exists is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said that what I've written is just an "original research" without something that can proove it.And I gave sources to proove that my view for the metal future will really happen.And as I can remember my view states that Dark Metal would be the most popular mix.Use logic my friend.
"Just because the genre exist" - well, yes.Just because metal exist, just because music exist, just because everything exist there is an article about them in this site.
realiable sources - yeah, they are not many about this style, but there are articles without any sources there - so they should be deleted too, rigtht?

In reply to your three points-

None of those later sources talk about 'dark metal', so even the name is original research. Need I say more? Those articles are not about dark metal, and so can not be used to verify its notability.
Everything that exists? I'll go and write Wikipedia user J Milburn's right foot now then. How many times do I have to say this? No reliable sources = no article. Wikipedia is not about everything that exists.
If you think that there are other articles that should be deleted, feel free to nominate them. That's irrelevent here, we know that other crap exists, we are discussing this article. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why I am even bothering... but still, look, I know the latest sources don't mention "dark metal"But they prove the whole opinion with the small letter abouve.I gave all of them because you said that my whole point is "made up" (original research) And if they proove that my point is likely to happen thus the dark metal subgenre would develop more and more in future.'why you are trying to delete an atricle since it will be created again sooner or leater??! And if it exists, and if there is already an article about it, why you are trying to delete it?!It gives useful information for a bunch of bands!And about this realiable sources -everything about them is subgective!I can say that may of the so called "reliable" sources are full of untrue information...However it's the baest that can be find in the Internet.As I can see doom-metal.com lists this style - use it as reliable source!! Xr 1 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not they 'prove' your opinion, they are useless as sources for dark metal. Whether it is likely to happen or not, there are no sources, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I have nominated the article for deletion because there are no reliable sources, and because it is based upon original research. Also, doom-metal.com is probably not a reliable source, but even if it is, a single reliable source is simply not enough, not to mention that the source is too vague to be of any real use anyway. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should every article have sources?If it hasn't -does this mean it gives fake infomation?-No.Unless someone can proove the info is fake.But if you want sources - doom-metal.com clearly states what dark metal is.Yeah, it doesn't have a stable definiton.So what?It is used frequently, there are bands labelled as such and as I can see we have reach a consensus that this style exists.Yes, wikipedia is not for eveything that exists, but if someone (like me) is interested in this existing thing - it should have page here.And it already does.Also the example with the right foot have nothing to do in this case.This is a music genre and people should be able to know what kind of music is.And as I explained, sooner or later the page will be created again... Xr 1 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should every article have sources?" ---> WP:V & WP:RS
"if someone (like me) is interested in this existing thing - it should have page here" ---> I'm interested in Wikipedia user J Milburn's right foot. Oh man, there aren't any reliable sources around or any notability about the subject. Should the article really be created, then? Cause if it is I will sure boost my edit count and create stuff about people's feet! No. It doesn't work that way.
"sooner or later the page will be created again..." ---> Sure, when the subject will be notable enough as reported by reliable and verifiable sources. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and will probably wait patiently while the genre will get the sources it needs. Zouavman Le Zouave 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, articles need to have sources that are verifiable and reliable, and be on a notable topic. If "dark metal" becomes an actual genre — enough that it is reported on by reliable sources — then the Wikipedia page can be re-created. --Managerpants (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is up with all of these stupid genres? This article, to say the least, sucks. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI remain unconvinced that this qualifies as a legitimate subgenre. The article lacks reliable sources and constitutes original research. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; I have used the term before, as the nominator said, but I agree that it seems to be a made up term. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saros (band)

Non notable band; Speedy tag pulled because band has a drummer from a ~~barely (if at all) notable~~ band (Weakling) that is only notable for having a guitarist from another band. Article makes no other assertion of notability, and cites no reliable sources. CastAStone /^/(talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This chaining of notability is a bridge too far for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to neutral. Some sources on the subject have been collected, and although they are either not strictly secondary sources (no interpetation), or I can't find out the reliablility, or significance of some sources, coupled with the notability by the letter of WP:BAND, I don't feel delete is the right choise anymore. I'm still not quite sure, so neutral for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and per Martijn Hoekstra. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[This is a reply from the author of the disputed article]

Look - you placed an unfilled internal link to the band Saros from the Weakling entry - I merely filled in the gap - i.e. - improved the referencing on the site. As far as the references, they are no different than 100's of others I see for bands on the site. I think you're being slightly overzealous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbard the Ancient (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for your contribution. There are a few issues with this comment though: First: That it was a red link should mean that there should be an article on the subject, but that is not always the case. This is, afterall, a wiki. Second: strictly speaking, this article adheres to the letter of WP:BAND, in that it is a band with a member of a notable band playing in it. On that ground, the article on Weakling can claim notability. However, this bandmember chaining notability carries in my oppinion a bit too far, and I believe it goes against the spirit of the mentioned guideline. Third: You claim there are other articles that are "just as bad, or worse" to paraphrase your words. Again, as this is a wiki, that might just mean they should be deleted to. It is actualy a notable reason in deletion discussions that should be avoided, see here: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I hope this clears things up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - but I think you mistook my meaning. I never said "just as bad or worse" - I simply noted that that's the sources were no different than many band entries. You made the statement of valuation which I believe has tainted this discussion - especially in your "chaining" of notability. If the band is mentioned but the content is missing - then the band deserves to (read "should") be properly referenced if they are being referred to in said article. I merely filled in the blanks left on the site weather the "should" have been filled or no. Not sure how to properly sign these replies - so not trying to mystify my replies. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbard the Ancient (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Are you sure you mean referenced in the same way as Wikipedia uses it? That is, linking to external independent reliable sources to verify the content? At any rate, I am not so much questioning the verifiablility of the article, but more the notability of the band. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In searching to try to decide on this article, I came across a fair amount of coverage of the band, some of which I've added to the article. The main problem for me is that I have doubts over the quality of the coverage - this isn't my kind of music, so I don't know how highly-regarded the sites concerned are.--Michig (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well - at this point I'll leave it up to those more experienced with the site and move on. I stand by the entry as is, but will wait to add anything more pending its approval / deletion.Harbard the Ancient —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbard the Ancient (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I promised to back off but I just browsed through the category of Musical groups established in 2004 and it seems really, really obvious to me that there's at least some amount of bias at work here. Not even a handful of any of the bands listed in that category are any more notable than the band whose entry is under question. Many haven't had as much coverage as far as live / record reviews or this info is missing from the entry. It's also obvious from the tone of the original objections that those voting for deletion aren't very familiar with the genre of said band and moreover are inimical to said genre on the whole. So, I don't feel the cry for deletion is really objective. OK - now I'm done whining and will move on. Harbard the Ancient (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is basicly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is constructive, as long as you are talking about the other stuff. If you can point me to other bands that fail WP:BAND, I'll be glad to take them to AfD. Do it on my talkpage though, this AfD is not the place for it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, but I need to leave this entry and subject alone for now. BUT - one last point - the band has been covered in Thrasher magazine last year in the print edition which is distributed world wide - but was only able to find a link to the text of said interview (included in entry). OK - now I AM DONE!!! Harbard the Ancient (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough to have reviews and interviews in at least a few publications. No reason to delete this page. --Tikilounge (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecruvian

No indication that this term is actually used anywhere. Seems to be made-up. Pichpich (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found the same thing, no sources, likely WP:NEO. Pharmboy (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term is a WP:NEO. No relevant sources on the Internet. Mh29255 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol University Latin American & Ballroom Dancing Society

Prodded and deleted article, restored on request. No opinion otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Ludicrous article, miles away from WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From WP:ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Such coverage and sources are listed in the article. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an implication of significance here if you close one eye and stare very hard. What are presented as references here are no more than filler local-interest stories at best. Multiple and independent sources, yes, but of a trivial nature. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One club at one University has no place with an article. Jmlk 1 7 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Delete. Sources are not about the society itself, they only mention it as part of wider coverage. Callmederek (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that the presence of independent sources is enough to keep this article from being speedy deleted but we are still a long way away from meeting the general notability requirements given the nature of the coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Okay, so I'm having to close one eye and stare very hard but there are two items in separate years from the local paper (Bristol Evening Press). This is certainly independent and the titles indicate that the articles focussed entirely on the society winning the top-level student championships that year. I must be having an inclusionist day but I think this squeaks over the bar. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are independent and reliable sources. And this society seems large in members, successful in its performances and generous in its donations. Why should we want to delete it when it can obviously be useful for people wanting to know more about it (from that university or another)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.44.204 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Not a hugely notable society, but basically passes the requirements of WP:RS. I can't say I'd hugely object if this was deleted, but on the other hand I don't think much harm will be done by keeping it. Terraxos (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... nothing really in the spirit of WP:RS. The BBC mention is trivial at best, and mentions in the "Bristol Evening Post" are nothing out of the ordinary, considering how often local organizations, bands, etc. are mentioned in the arts scene section of local papers. A few articles here and there do not grant notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be SALTed, as it was already deleted as an expired PROD. Jmlk 1 7 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I have a hard time finding anything notable about the society. Jmlk 1 7 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Hughes (author)

Article fails to establish notability of the subject. One novel (without a supporting Wikipedia article) is insufficient. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning towards Keep. Removed the link to an under construction page, but the novel has several reviews by important reviewers and was published by a major press (W. W. Norton) and went through multiple editions. The article is only the most minor stub though. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If the reviews are added. DGG (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Thumma

Speedied, recreated, PRODded, unPRODded, and still the only wispy assertion of notability has not been backed up with reliable sources. Meanwhile, the creator is asserted to have COI issues and to be a relentless self-promoter (see talk page). Let's have this in or out, once and for all. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. COI is bad enough, but the subject doesn't pass WP:BIO anyway. Primary claim-to-fame is running a website which itself wouldn't pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual is not notable and creation of article by the same person is a conflict of interest.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to support notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here or in a Google search convinces me that this is a notable person. --Dawn bard (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of models and performers by cup size

Unreferenced list, focused on porn stars. Wikipedia is not a directory. List hasn't been updated since its inception. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can I call facepalm as my argument? Yng varr 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bluegoblin 7 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm…yeah, Delete per all of the above. Besides, what about A - C? oh, nevermind… —Travis ^talk 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd give a reason that this is impossible to verify, but I think I'd be trampled by the onslaught of volunteers. So let's just say it doesn't meet WP:RS in these days of surgical augmentation. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't tell the cabal. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet it, desu. DESU DESU DESU? (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and snow it. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I had said before I needed this for an Asignment, I stongly believe this article should stay.Rlk89 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid argument, your necessity does not dictate the encyclopedia's content. If it's such a big deal, save it to your hard drive before we nuke it. (On a tangental note, what class would you need this for? Just so I can sign up. =P) Oh, and delete as per nom. ♠P M C♠ 17:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty much the definition of indiscriminate information. People who stumble upon this article are probably looking for something more like List of big-bust models and performers, which itself should probably be deleted, but that's another debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers 2nd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_22#List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think either this article or one very similar (perhaps a list of big-bust models and performers by size?) was nominated for deletion a few months ago and was kept. I can see how this list is indiscriminate as compared to the other, though, as size is more germane to that topic than just the broad one this one covers (no pun intended?). If it is alright with all those involved here already, I would like to notify a couple editors I know who are better acquainted with deletion issues in this area about this discussion. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do you have a link to that other page? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I couldn't remember the name of it, so I had to search for it. It's List of big-bust models and performers. (Which upon edit conflict UncleG seems to have pulled out, as well.) If my memory serves me correctly, the deletion nomination was the result of an edit war that had gone on, on the page, so it wasn't your standard deletion discussion. However, some of the participants both in that edit war and the discussion may have some insights into what could be done with this particular list. I suppose that if there's anyone on this list that fits the criteria that were settled upon for the other list who's not already on there, we could merge that information. But as far as listing models and performers by cup size, that seems something more suited to a category, if anything, though perhaps not one suited to Wikipedia. (Boobpedia on the other hand, is primarily categorized in that manner.) LaMenta3 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LIST and per nom. Recommend a WP:SNOW closer. Tiptoety ^talk 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Demand to be Keep~~ Please don't comment with nonsense(very few substantial comments)Rlk89 (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You already casted your vote above. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but transwiki to Wipipedia or some other sex-related wiki. Does not meet Wikipedia's standards or guidelines, e.g. WP:LIST and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Solumeiras ^talk 11:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons: 1. Too broad a criteria; in theory could have tens of thousands of names athough in this case there are only a few listed suggesting to me this might have been an abandoned project, 2. Impossible to verify and source everyone; the majority of such lists involve guesswork and OR and at the moment there are no sources at all on this list, and 3. Vandalism magnet. Someone could go in there and change one of the listings or add Harrison Ford to one of them and if it's not caught it could sit there for weeks before anyone noticed (assuming the list grew beyond the half-dozen or so names currently there. 23skidoo (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have we hit WP:SNOW yet? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge -- I find the keep arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers convincing. I think this article should be merged with that one. Geo Swan (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Church of the Subgenius Nakon 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dobbstown

Fictional location of no real-world notability discussed in-universe. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Church of the Subgenius fancruft. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Church of the Subgenius as a topic very specific to the church with little likelihood of notability beyond it. I'm suggesting the redirect because it'll discourage recreation. Praise Bob. 23skidoo (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlamTV!

Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT#INTERNET. Non-notable webcast with no independent reliable sourcing attesting to its notability. Prod disputed by article's creator, who may have some WP:COI issues. Otto4711 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - I have no issues with you. I simply asked how I should improve the page, and I still don't know exactly what your asking for. I've been updating it though. The sources on it so far come from 6 places, their website, what you can call their second web site being the owners web page, their radio show myspace which I guess what you can say is a third site of theirs, 1wrestling.com, a press release posted on theburninghammer.com, and the latest webast. As stated before, an acceptable page, WWE Byte This! only shows one source and it's from their own site, and nobody has a problem with that. So I don't see how there are "no independent reliable sourcing attesting to its notability." I will continue to look for sources though, but I don't think I'll find much more seeing as it's between seasons. Juggalobrink (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an article to be included in Wikipedia, the subject of that article must be notable. "Notable" means that there are independent reliable sources that offer substantive information about the subject. "Independent" means that the source must be unrelated to the subject. The website for SlamTV is not independent of SlamTV. The website for the Juggalo wrestling promotion, which produces SlamTV, is not independent of SlamTV. The website for Insane Clown Posse, the owners of SlamTV and Juggalo, is not independent of SlamTV. Press releases, Myspace pages, etc. are not considered reliable sources. There need to be sources that have no relationship to SlamTV, Juggalo and Insane Clown Posse. Articles in newspapers and magazines with reputations for fact-checking, for instance. Stories on websites with such a reputation. Evidence that the webcast has won notable awards. Something along those lines. I advised you to read the policies and guidelines that I linked to above to get a better understanding of the standards for inclusion. I searched extensively before I listed the article and could find nothing. Otto4711 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Sorry I didn't really understand what it meant before, all I got out of it was to use sources besides their site. I understand now. I'm still going to keep looking and adding varous references from other sites I find. Juggalobrink (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added more refs from sites such as wrestleview.com, wrestlingobserver.com, and wrestling-radio.com. Juggalobrink (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the existence of the WWE webcast or any other article has no bearing on whether this article should exist. Otto4711 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Video, Youtube and in-house wrestling fan sites do not notable sources make. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, While I appreciate the effort in trying to source the article, I still don't think this internet show is at all notable. Nikki311 17:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers, L A X 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bombilla & Gourd Mate Tea

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bombilla & Gourd Mate Tea

Delete Non-notable company. The sign to prove notability is given is a award - "Best Non-Carbonated Beverage of 2007" by bevnet.com. The award itself is not justified to prove notability. And the article is filled with the products by the company in a form of advertisement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not only non-notable, but verges on if not meets the standards for "blatant advertising" as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this tea article tastes like spam. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and sources. The sources provided are either primary (from the company itself), non-reliable (a sponsored award), or cannot be evaluated, as no links are provided. This might be a notable brand, but I need more data to judge that. The tone of the article is highly spammy, but that's a cleanup issue. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also not object to a speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - advert, not notable etc... Bluegoblin 7 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not too smammy, but the sources are very weak. It tastes like a local beverage company to me. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riskdata

Yet another corporate buzzword. Links that seem to be trying to act as sources appear to be primary. Looks like just more "proactive" "spin" to "me". JuJube (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, one should not delete the page. It describes a risk approach developed some time ago. In financial riskmanagement there are more approaches, this is one of them. The difference is very important today with new investment vehicles not being passive in nature anymore.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi111 (talk • contribs) 15:21, January 18, 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. The article itself is fairly confusing, and I think much of that is because it uses terminology that is esoteric and/or nonstandard without defining it in a way or giving enough context that even an educated layperson interested in finance can understand. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that defines the subject of the article, something called "riskdata." If that is in the article, it's not stated. It says it's a process but it doesn't say what the process is, who invented it, why it's useful, etc. Riskdata is a trademark term belonging to somebody or another, so if it's notable enough for an article it should have some sources, and the article should concentrate on whatever product or service it is that is trademarked. The general discussion of risk management probably belongs in some other article. Wikidemo (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthrough project and Derivative project

These two appear to be more corporate buzzwords in the vein of Project champion from the same author. JuJube (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imsorry, but do you actually have any real knowledge of project management or business? The reason they are both by the same author is because i am currently working on the subject and have discovered that wiki didnt yet have entries for them. Google results turn up 590,000 hits for derivative and 1,900,000 hits for a breakthrough project. They are valid project management terms and used in everyday business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reue (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but - in order for an article to be on Wikipedia - the subject must have independent, reliable sources that verify that the subject exists and is notable. JuJube, in nominating the articles for deletion, does not see evidence that this is the case, as the articles do not cite sources or independent coverage to show why they would be in an encyclopedia. Do you have sources or coverage that could show why these terms are important? My google search came up with a lot of unrelated hits for both terms, so maybe you could point out some of the relevant sites or articles that discuss these topics? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These terms are not adequately sourced, do not apply to distinct phenomena of encyclopedic importance, and do not in fact appear to be real business terms in widespread use. A google search in fact turns up relatively few listings, none of which I could find to support the article claims. To the extent the terms are use their standard English meaning fully explains them. Wikidemo (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly remake It'll be much faster to do so than to let either article stay in the hopes of being improved. --Kannie | talk 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Johansson/Björk (32.18)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scarlett Johansson/Björk (32.18)

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not mere plot summaries and Wikipedia is not TV Guide. The notability of Saturday Night Live does not make a listing of every sketch of every episode notable or encyclopedic. Prod removed by anon without comment, which, whatever. Otto4711 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR. Important information is already on List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#PLOT. Doc Strange (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to be fair here, are there other SNL episode articles? If so, then they need to be nominated as well, otherwise there's inconsistency here. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~No, there are no other SNL episodes AFIAK that have their own pages~~. I could be wrong. All of them are summarized in this article Doc Strange (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guess what? I was wrong. There are a few: Molly Shannon/Linkin Park (32.19) and Zach Braff/Maroon 5 (32.20) are the only two I see, and they're both tagged for deletion anyhow Doc Strange (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to keep. This AfD has run for 6+ days, there has been a previous AfD and a DRV, and there is no reason to believe that keeping the AfD open will result in a consensus. --MCB (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Collins

AfDs for this article:

This article was originally deleted at its first AfD. DRV overturned that result, in light of an insufficient closing rationale. The issues at stake remain the subject's notability, as well as concerns regarding WP:NOT the NEWS. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Weak keep would prefer to redirect to Mark Speight as her main notability seems to be that he was suspected of causing her death but am convinced by DGG. JJL (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And her acting caeer... Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BIO1e may well be true for those with no notability outside of one event, but for those of borderline notability, one noteworthy event (e.g. a well publicized death) can raise the profile of the borderline dimensions of their life (which the references do comment on). WP:BLP does not apply to the recently dead, no matter how much some might like to apply it there. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable before her death. Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, besides the fact of heracting career and car accident. You guys really aren't looking into the refs. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable apart from a few small TV roles, only claim to fame is a brief bit of media interest in her death due solely to her partners notability. RMHED (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, she was co-star of See It, Saw It. Sure her other roles were small, but doesn't thatone fact alone constitute notability? Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her death was well publicised, which makes her notable. Brochco (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark Speight. Delete (DGG makes a very good point below as to why this shouldn't be redirected - hadn't thought of that) Her death was unfortunatly the only notable thing about her. WP:NOT#NEWS states that those that become the focus of news stories do not necessarily become notable, and I don't feel that previous to that she was notable. _TalkIslander 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She is perhaps a little more notable than a great deal of others who appear in the news, having had a minor television career prior to her death. Brochco (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Minor being the salient point. On its own, her TV career wasn't notable. On its own, her death wasn't notable. Do the two together make her notable? I don't think so, as the two are completely unrelated. _TalkIslander 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Minor other than the fact that she was co-star on See It, Saw It, and her car Aaccident. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The extensive media coverage of Natasha Collins in multiple reliable sources cited in Natasha_Collins#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Natasha Collins cited in Natasha_Collins#References would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.

^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

John254 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mark Speight per WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Natasha Collins is notable as a model and an actress. John254 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Mark Speight. She's yesterday's fish and chips wrapping. Her very brief acting career doesn't represent a significant body of work. The more recent coverage is due to her connection to Speight, not any inherent recognition; had she been living with an accountant, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. --Kife 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it may still have received some press coverage because of her acting/modeling career - albeit a lot less attention than it did get. Anyway, for what it's worth, I would say keep as per John254. Paul20070 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps redirect or merge and redirect. May be a useful search term after this minor news event, but she alone was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the details of her life are not very relevant. Just imagine that she was e.g. a nurse in some hospital. The articles listed would still give those details ("the victim, a 32 year old nurse from St. Pauls Hospital, ..."), just like they did here. The fact that her biography is very briefly sketched in those articles about Mark Speight is not evidence of some notability for her life, but standard procedure in such "suspicious death" articles. The focus in all these articles is clearly solely on Mark Speight, and thus I see no evidence that Natasha Collins is notable, or that we should have an article on her. Fram (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since she wasn't a nurse in some hospital, but an actress/model, I fail to see the relevance of the above comment. I doubt the death of a nurse in similar circumstances, even if she were the girlfriend of an actor, would have received as much press coverage. Paul20070 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the relevance is that none of the press coverage was because she was an actress / model, but because a "celebrity" (Speight) was perhaps involved in someone's death. It didn't matter if she was a librarian, an actress or a nurse, as is reflected in the articles on the event. As far as I have seen, there is not one single source that puts emphasis on the "she was an actress and model!" part, they just mention it in passing, just like they would mention other occupations in passing. There is not one article that starts with something like "Natasha Collins, known as an actress and a model, died last week". None. This indicates that she is not considered to be notable by the press. The sole focus of all these articles is Mark Speight. Fram (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably have phrased that differently. Anyway, If she were a nurse, we wouldn't be debating her notability right now. I doubt the article would have been created at all, and even if it had been, it would probably have been speedily deleted within minutes - I would certainly mark such an article for speedy delete nomination if I came across it.

I'm not certain whether this article was created because of Mark Speight's possible involvement in the death, or because somebody did a bit of research and decided Natasha Collins was a celebrity in her own right. That being the case, it doesn't really matter what job Speight does, whether he's a plumber, an accountant or an actor. The issue at stake here, as I see it, is whether Collins was notable in her own right. I personally think there's an argument that says she was notable because she appeared in several different productions (not all of them listed, I hasten to add). I'm in favour of keeping, but it is a borderline issue really. Paul20070 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no problem with that. I disagree on her personal notability, but that's the nature of opinions and discussions of course... Fram (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability for her TV and movie work, independent of her death (which I ignored when I made my evaluation). 23skidoo (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What movie work? --Kife 14:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't know, but according to this she did. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Acting in film" can mean anything from being a world-famous movie star (which she clearly wasn't) to being an extra. The Times is not what it was. Small roles in two mini-series and a supporting role in one children's television series still doesn't add up to a significant body of work. --Kife 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That constitutes borderline notability, and with the addition of her death makes her certainly notable. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No. A spike in the news reporting on Mark Speight does not constitute "significant coverage". Her death is not notable, in the Wikipedia sense. --Kife 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The spike in the news itself is not notable, but with her borderline notability added to that it does. Of course the spike is significant coverage and I am pondering that odd statement. Anyway, since when has Wikipedia become the media? Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Exactly. Wikipedia is not the media. We are not bound to follow the popular press in starting articles which merely report the scandal of the day (in this case, the report of Speight's arrest). Notability is not conferred by the brief popularity of a story; nor is it conferred solely by connection to a notable individual. --Kife 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How is Mark Speight any more notable than Collins? Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Mark Speight is a very notable children's TV presenter. He's presented (not co-stared) SMart for its entire run; he does a lot of presenting on CBBC. Just look at his article for a number of reasons why he's notable, and I'm not including the arrest in that, 'cause on it's own that wouldn't make him notable. _Talk Islander 12:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, Mark Speight may be more notable than Collins, but look at her article and all the television work she did before asking to delete. Her death in itself is not notable, nor is her television work, but the two combined make her notable. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There was no consensus to delete according to the previous AfD, and no new evidence has come to light since then. Wewouldn't even be having this arguement if Collins' article was not deleted. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was non notable in both life and death. I can't believe we're having this debate again with all the same arguments being batted to and fro. Brett Leaford (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no concensus to delete in the first place. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was concensus, it's simply that the closing admin left a rather weak closing statement, not making it clear how they reached their decision. _TalkIslander 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, there was consensus to keep muckh more than ther was to delete. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I didn't really have an opinion on this subject when I opened the previous afd debate, but having had time to reflect, I think a redirect to an appropriate section of Mark Speight would be the ideal solution. That will hopefully satisfy both camps in this argument, which appears to me to be going around in circles. Egdirf (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you fail to see about her (semi?-)notable acting and modelling career. How would that information be placed in the Mark Speight article? Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, you've made your views on this subject perfectly clear. Though this is a discussion to achieve concensus, and you're clearly welcome to comment, I can't help thinking that replying to everyone who disagrees with you, with exactly the same argument each time, isn't constructive. _TalkIslander 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My intentions here, dear Islander, is to make sure that this article is kept as in the current position. To do that, I think that I will have to counter every arguement for the betterment of Wikipedia. Sorry if you see this as unconstructive, but that's my writing style. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOT NEWS applies only if there is insubstantial coverage over a short time, as is not the case here. She might possibly have been just barely notable enough for an article in any case, based on her work, or at least close to it, and her manner of death makes her at least a little more notable, which is sufficient. I would strongly oppose redirecting to Speight--this might be a violation of BLP with respect to him, as he has not been charged with any crime in connection with this. It can be mentioned in the article on him, but the link would throw excessive weight. DGG (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT#NEWS is one of the more abused Wikipedia policies, and this AfD does not disappoint. As an individual with reliable coverage of her career during lifetime, the addition of reliable coverage of her death only further cements notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If all we are doing is regurgitating recent press reports, then let them be the first entry on a google search, not us. When there is enough material to warrant a full encyclopedic article on the subject, I will be happy to revise my opinion. Wikipedia does not have to include everything, and an instance like this was one of the reasons WP:N was framed in the way it was. The consensus on Wikipedia at that time was that the subject of news reporting focussed on one event were not thought to be suitable subjects for an encyclopedic article unless their were exceptional circumstances. A redirect to Mark Speight allows us to cover the event, inform our readers but not act as an obituary provider. Hiding T 12:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When will you ever start listening to me? he was not natable for one event, but two, possibly three: her death, her acting career, and (possibly) her accident. Besides, as stated above by DGG, a redirect to Speight may be a serious violation of BLP in respect to him. Editorofthewiki (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are listening to you. Doesn't mean we have to agree. As for ther redirect, probably explains why Hiding chose 'delete', and not 'redirect'. _TalkIslander 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but his wording was so ambiguous that it seemed more of a redirect then a delete. Editorofthewiki (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mark Speight Delete. I would say that she's not notable in her own right; nothing in her life up to her death gives her serious evidence of notability. She is currently somewhat notable for her death, but that may not last; and we should only have an article on someone if their long-term notability is undisputed. On the other hand, if (heaven forbid) Speight were charged with causing her death, then she would probably become sufficiently notable for her own article. So, in other words: let's delete/merge this now, and wait for the outcome of the police investigation. She could become notable, but she hasn't yet, and to keep this article on the assumption that she will is to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Terraxos (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just changed my vote to 'Delete' as I notice all the relevant information has already been merged. Terraxos (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. I hadn't heard of Natasha Collins until the morning of 4 January 2008, when I switched on the news - and there was the story of her death. I think this is probably the case with most people, and I doubt we'll remember her when 4 January 2009 rolls around, so why waste valuable Wikispace? The circumstances of her death were a tragedy, but there is nothing particularly notable about them, probably not even if Speight were charged in connection with it. The truth of the matter is that she isn't of sufficient notability for an article. There are lots of actors who appear in minor roles, such as Collins did, and it doesn't automatically give them 'celebrity' status. We need a reality check here. Brett Leaford (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aspiring tragic young actress, merits own article. Prior experience in arenas of theatre, TV and film before career focus on modelling following her recovery from coma.

Comment Also 4wks until coroner's inquest reconvenes, so premature to consider here before further details emerge. --Ricksy (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staccato-Harmonic Duo-Tone

Non-notable original research. The only hit I get on google is this article. I've played guitar but I'm far from an expert but this technique sounds like nothing new to me it pretty much sounds like a hammer on combined with a harmonic then just a simple pull off. Since there are no other sources then this article it's impossible for me to tell what is being described here. Ridernyc (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I don't necessarily agree with OR claim, unless the article was posted by Nguyen himself, but I have to agree that I can't tell what's special about the effect. It seems like it's just a form of playing the harmonic that sounds the fundamental briefly as well. Ten years ago that was just known as playing a sloppy harmonic. However, the fact that he presented a lecture at the Charles Darwin University guitar festival says that academic professionals within the field thought it was unique enough to give him a spot. Torc2 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research doesn't mean "posted here by the inventor". It means that the idea hasn't escaped its creator, been peer reviewed, been documented in independent sources with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, been acknowledged by the rest of the world, and entered the general corpus of human knowledge. Unverifiability is also a problem. How do you propose that readers check this article for correctness? They cannot travel back in time and attend the lecture. Where was this idea written down and published by reliable and independent sources, that readers can use to check anything that this article says about it? Readers must be able to check all Wikipedia content against sources. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the poster isn't the one doing the research, or if they're just copying something they read about and didn't source it, then (copyright aside) it's just a matter of verifiability and sources. The only question for the AfD is does this actually exist, is it notable, and do we have sources to verify our answers to the first two? Yes we do. Complaints about content beyond that are outside the realm of the AfD and should be handled with the appropriate tags within the article. Yes, the article needs better sources, and sections of it might be original research; I never denied that. But I think what source is there is at least enough to pass the AfD. As to being able to verify it, that's a problem with any source that isn't available online. Do we delete everything whose sources are still only available on ink and paper or videotape? Torc2 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a loaded question, based upon the assumption that sources that are "only available on ink and paper" exist, and that the creator of the article is using something that they read. There's no evidence that that is true. You have not cited any sources, neither does the article. You have no basis for the "Yes we do." answer that you gave to your own question, and you certainly haven't proven that to anyone else. I repeat the questions that I asked above, that you have avoided answering: How do you propose that readers check this article for correctness? Where was this idea written down and published by reliable and independent sources, that readers can use to check anything that this article says about it? Avoiding the questions again will only lend weight to the conclusion that you don't actually have any, and that the correct answer to your question is in fact "No, we don't.". Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article references a university-hosted festival/conference where the material was presented. Generally, university-hosted music events like this are not places where every random person gets to present anything they feel like presenting. Academic conferences like the ICMC are juried, and the presenter applies or is asked to give a lecture about recent work; conference programs and a book of Proceedings are produced. So what was "written down and published by reliable and independent sources" was the program to the festival, and based on that reference alone, we know that a lecture on this topic was approved and given at a formal academic event. That gives reason enough to believe it was notable (under Wikipedia:MUSIC#Others if nothing else). Now, if you want to debate the factuality of something in the article content, that's a matter for the article page, not for an AfD. Torc2 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You know nothing about this music festival and nothing about what he did there, you are basing everything you are saying purely on assumptions. If it can't be show with reliable independent sources, it can not be on wikipedia. Show me actual sources that show prove any of these assumptions you are making and the article stays. Ridernyc (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's an academic event, hosted by a university. Certain assumptions are reasonable. How many academic music conferences have you been to? Torc2 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was left on the talk page of this AFD

This staccato-harmonic duotone is a very important discovery in guitar playing technique in the 21st century. Le-Tuyen Nguyen, an Australian educator and composer gave a lecture-recital on this new technique at the Darwin International Guitar Festival in July 2007. Leading classical musicians and composers around the world were amazed. Further research to look at sound waves and harmonics-series of staccato-harmonic duo-tone using computer sound analysis is being done.

My comment to it that's all great show me proof. Ridernyc (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is me Hduc (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) who put this article on wikipedia. I saw the author playing and demonstrate the technique at a gathering. I am not an acedemic but an atmospheric scientist and i think the public should know what the author have invented. I think your proposal to delete this article is weak.[reply]

has anything been published on this technique are you just writing the article from what you yourself saw demonstrated? Ridernyc (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been published yet. I talked to the author afterward and i told him i am curious and if possible want to investigate the physical process of the sound production when he creates two tones. It is strange that this can happen and the only way to understand is by analysing the recorded signals (using filtering and Fourier analysis). He agreed to this but we haven't met again yet. In the meantime, he gave me the notes and a copy of his talk at the conference. This is the basis of the materials i put on te web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hduc (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there we go this is all just orginal research. Ridernyc (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Denner

I've been pondering the notability of this person for a while and I can't really decide whether there should be a wikipedia article about the subject or not. There seems to be some claims to notability in the article, but I can't find any reliable third party sources to back them up (most of the current sources seem to be unreliable or edited by the subject of the article), searching for the two listed books brings up little to nothing, and one of them appears to be self-published. PirateMink 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the lack of reliable third party sources. I will revisit this discussion if some(any) good sources are posted. --Stormbay (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man is a publisher and a poet with an extensive bibliography, part of the sixties Berkeley scene. Many poets publish only chapbooks--there is a long and rich tradition of this. What harm does it do to anyone or anything to keep this entry?Wageless (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Renwick

Director of Progressive Insurance. Article is just a statement of that fact and unsupported bulletpoints showing stuff he did. Speedy tag removed by Esprit15d (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future timeline

AfDs for this article:

Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT as being nothing but a restatement of the plots of the various films in the franchise. No independent reliable sourcing. Similar to the various deleted timeline/storyline plotfest articles, including but not limited to Kevin and Kell, Ultima Universe, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Eureka Seven, Hayate the Combat Butler, Love Hina and many, many others. Otto4711 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is not just a restatement of plot but shows how the time travel mechanisms work, clearing up a possibly confusing situation. Does indeed have reliable independent sourcing. And just because other articles have been deleted by the Fun Destroyers doesn't mean others should. This one should definitely stay. Thanos6 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, calling other Wikipedians "Fun Destroyers" is not civil. Second, which sources are you suggesting are independent? The films, the novels based on the films or the other linked Wikipedia articles? Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The Starlog, for one. The various historical facts. The BTTF.com website. Thanos6 (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Starlog interview is being used to source exactly one sentence. The historical existence of caffeine-free Pepsi and the like doesn't really cut it as a source, and the links are to Wikipedia articles, which under no circumstances are usable as sources for other Wikipedia articles. The BTTF.com website is not independent. So again, where are the independent reliable sources? Otto4711 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much a source sources is irrelevant. Historical facts do indeed "cut it." And BTTF.com is indeed independent; the official site is BTTFmovie.com Thanos6 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP = Informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londo06 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thanos6 --Zpb52 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I not only think that this article should be kept, I just drove my DeLorean at 88 miles per hour and voted to keep in the previous AfD, which set a rather clear consensus for retention. And deleting articles that passed a previous AfD is civil? Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, and putting an article up for discussion after over a year since the last AFD, which was kept on the "strength" of such opinions as "It would be criminal to delete this cool, interesting article" and "the article is very interesting" does not implicate WP:CIVIL. WP:INTERESTING is not a terribly compelling argument, and neither is "it's had an AFD already." Would you have any interest at all in addressing the substance of the nomination? Otto4711 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other arguments in the previous AfD included: "well executed and shows the collaboration of many wikipedians"; "It would make a great research aid for anyone studying complex plots devices"; "N:V is not a legitimate complaint either, as the entry can be verified against the movies." Let's not cherry-pick quotes to imply a case. The Zig (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of you read the previous AfD? Did anyone do the math on the consensus? I counted some 90% keep on the previous AfD, and while consensus can change, the nominator has provided no evidence whatsoever that there is any change in the community's consensus on the notability of this article. While you can quibble with the wording of a vote or two (and I would firmly disagree), you'd have to find excuses to wipe out over 30 keep votes to have made the previous AfD even close to anything but keep. Refighting battles just because you don't like the previous result -- yes, even one whole year after an overwhelming consensus for keep -- is inherently uncivil. Alansohn (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, revisting an article a year later is not uncivil, inherently or otherwise. Flinging around baseless and unfounded accusations of incivilty because you don't like the idea of the discussion? Now that's uncivil. Address the nomination, don't falsely attack the nominator. And I am still waiting for a single rebuttal of the actual substance of the nomination, which is that as a re-telling of the events of the three films it is a violation of the policy WP:NOT#PLOT. For all of this back-and-forth and all of the bad faith accusations being directed at the nominator, not one of you has refuted the nomination and in fact the comment below acknowledges that it's a plot summary. And as for the bad-faith "cherry-picking" quotes accusation, do I really need to run down the entire last round of keep comments and point out how, when they aren't based on flawed arguments like how interesting people find the article or how useful it might be or how many people worked on it, and such utter non-arguments as "it's a work of art," they're by and large acknowledging that this nomination is correct that the article is nothing more than a plot summary? Look at how many people in the last AFD flat-out call it a "plot summary" or a "plot description" or an "explanation of the plot." There is simply no way around the simple fact that this article is a plot summary and it is bedrock Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. Otto4711 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get silly. It's not a "bad-faith accusation" to say that you cherry-picked quotes to support your case, just as is not bad faith to say I cherry-picked my quotes in response. My point was that this is weak, unproductive and most importantly misleading, as neither of us accurately reflect the previous AfD. Theres a link to the AfD just above. People can read it and make their own judgement on its validity, no? The Zig (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains info transcending 3 highly notable films (& thus could not be covered in/merged to any one of the other articles), yet it covers info relevant to them all. It is entirely sourced within the films (it is verifiable, anyone can check), sources are only required to be independent when establishing notability. (It would be ridiculous to exclude primary sources when actually describing something!) It is a fairly standard argument that plot details are 'too trivial' for an encyclopedia - I'd usually agree - but in this case, IMO it's warranted by the massive popularity of the films (as again evidenced in the snowballing of the last AfD) along with their complexity (as evidenced in the article, the films and the last AfD). All encyclopedias carry more detail on things that are popular and interest people. Perhaps it's not fair, but it's sensible. Why delete stuff that makes Wikipedia worthwhile just to accord to generalised guidelines that themselves state they should be broken if common sense dictates? Hence keep. The Zig (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT is not a "guideline." It is a policy. Wikipedia policies are not subject to the common sense occasional exceptions that guidelines are. Nor is "the thing whose plot is being summarized is really popular" a valid rebuttal of the policy violation. Otto4711 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. It's a policy that generally works, in most cases, but (I think) it's wrong here. I don't think policies should be ignored wily-nily, but they can't be written to spell out every reasonable exception. In this case (and in the last AfD) consensus seems broadly against deletion. Policies are relevant, but not holy writ. They too are subject to consensus. Therefore per common sense and wp:Ignore all rules, I think consensus (i.e. the reasoned opinion of WP's editors) is a better judge of what should be here than blind application of a policy. That's just my view. Now let's not get heated over this! The Zig (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, saw this again. There is nothing new to suggest it warrants deletion. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. My nomination was based on the supposition that air incidents are not considered automatically notable; that appears to be incorrect and I stand corrected. That the prime minister was in the vicinity might affect notability seems laughable to me; that was the only "special" titbit the article offered at the time - there was no mention that this was the first hull loss of a 777. --kingboyk (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight BA38

This is a news story (an interesting one, for a day or two) not an encyclopedia topic. Nobody was killed, it's apparently not an incident of any historical import, just a minor air crash. WP:NOT a newspaper. kingboyk (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, this is the first time a 777 has had an accident and it happened at the worlds busiest airport just metres from the Prime Minister. Also, this article is less than two hours old, I think we should wait a bit before nominating it for deletion. --Philip Stevens (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should wait a bit before making articles on news articles. We are not a news service. The article currently fails to demonstrate it's own importance. "Just metres from the prime minister" - oh really?! He was at Heathrow but I doubt it was metres, and he wasn't hit. Sorry. --kingboyk (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was only metres away, Nick Robinson (who was on Brown's plane) said he could look out the window and see it. He said he was less than 400 yards away. --Philip Stevens (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the first hull-loss accident, not the first accident at all. That makes it notable. However, the proximity of the Prime Minister is totally irrelevant IMO - at best a much weaker reason and doesn't secure notability in itself. (A car accident near the PM might make the news, but not an encyclopaedia entry.) Hairy Dude (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - 0 fatalities does not equal 0 notability. Any failure of a vehicle carrying that number of passengers is noteworthy, especially at an airport that busy, or owned by an airline that large. Radagast (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - agree with above user - the proximity of the incident to the British Prime Minister who happened to be going to China himself (from whence the plane came) make this notable, plus the fact that 777s are normally considered to be fairly safe aircraft. -- Roleplayer (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In terms of aircraft accidents, this is a significant one as it is the first major failure of a Boeing 777. I think it better to just let this article develop, though I understand the notnews concerns. Woody (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first hull loss of a Boeing 777 is notable. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic; it's newspaper material, not encyclopedia article material. Not the first time a 777 has had a major failure; see Boeing 777. 400m is a quarter mile/half a kilometer away; not "close". This incident is already included as a 2-line entry in the Boeing 777 article, where it belongs (first hull loss is indeed notable for inclusion in that article, just not as an article of its own). When this AFD ends in a few days, with some perspective, I suspect it will be more obvious to everyone that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article. --barneca (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepFirst accident involving the Boeing 777, significant importance. --Markie (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Speedy Keep Definitely notable for a large aircraft from a major airline to crash land at one of the world's major airports. This is not "just" a news story, it is a news story right now because it has just happened but it is a notable event that will no doubt continue to generate encyclopedic content. For an example of what such an article would likely expand into see Air France Flight 358 which is an almost identical incident (identical in all the important ways, bar the fire). When that article was created it also just sounded like a news story [42], but only because that is the only information that was available. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Boeing 777. I'm sure that, today, this looks like "history-in-the-making"... but it's not. It'll be forgotten by Saturday. Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right about it being forgotten but that doesn't change how notable it is. Notable is not the same as well known. There are plenty of things that the majority of people have forgotten about, or never knew about, that are still notable. It may not be news tomorrow but, as the nominator points out, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until I see how the crew saved the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.143.252 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - agree with Random Fixer Of Things - AF358 is the first thing that comes to mind.Markomagare (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW chance of a consensus to delete. It is too soon to determine whether the notability is temporary. It is notable today and may (or may not) be notable in a weeks time. Mayalld (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per above ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should keep this article, the Air France flight 358 crash with no fatalities with another 'safe' airliner has its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxlondon (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 January 2008
Keep Loss of power and avionics makes this a very serious incident in every respect. That no one died is immaterial. M100 (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's the first (non-security related) incident at Heathrow for quite a few years. Astronaut (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other rationale. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the above. —Nightstallion 16:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coincidental proximity of a political figure to an accident really doesn't make it notable. This should be left in the 777 article for now. I would support the article being reinstated once hard facts about the cause of the accident are available, but Wikipedia isn't the place for rumor and hearsay. FireFury (talk)

The notability of the article has nothing to do with the PM. The notability is the first major crash (hull loss?) of the 777. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A rare accident invovling a major airline at a major airport - Linczone^Talk^/^Watch 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wargames Research Group

Vocational group, article was prodded and deleted but restored on request. The article claims that the group's work was cited in academic work, but the evidence points to a link farm, a syllabus and an online essay, but no published academic articles. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WRG is a standards setter in the field of miniature wargaming. The extent to which their works are cited by academia is irrelevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation in academia is the claim to notability mentioned in the article. It is, like your claim, wholly unreferenced. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're supposed to search yourself before nominating. Please see this list of books. One of them, on the first page of hits, says The 'ancient' period has long been popular with wargamers, due in no small measure to the publications of the Wargames Research Group, whose best-selling.... Now please withdraw your nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I don't see anything that could be considered a substantial portrait of the group in that link. Passing mentions don't meet WP:N. So, no. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- why the hair trigger reaction to delete?? There's no question among the wargaming community about the significance of WRG - if there was only 1 organisation from wargaming on Wiki then this might be it. The requirements for 3rd party reviews etc. are almost impossible to meet because such things generally do not occur in the hobby at all, so it's being worked on.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolute nonsense. Wargames publications are constantly reviewing rule sets as well as figures. If this company had really been all that influential, there would be hundreds of third-party (i.e. not originating with the company, its sister organisations, or its small but self-important fan base) sources that could be included. Mr Maxim (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- reference to academia removed. AFAIK incorrect references are supposed to be corrected aren't they, rather than the whole article deleted?--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are still no references, even though a couple of the more grandiose claims in the article have been trimmed. Despite what its fans seem to claim, WRG is not really all that notable. Warhammer (sadly) is indisputably important enough to have an article, so if there 'were only one wargaming company' on Wiki it would be Games Workshop (note: WRG is a company, not some not-for-profit organisation). So far, we see lots of claims that WRG is important, but absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone outside a very limited clique considers it of any import whatsoever. More than half the article is simply a list of the company's products. The tone of the article is distinctly biased, in that it makes comments like 'most wargamers refer to the games simply by their version number'. There is no evidence that 'most wargamers' even 'refer to the games' at all. A biased article isn't on its own a reason to delete, but the following points, all working in concert, definitely make this article a deletion candidate:

No references other than the company's home page
Unverified comparisons to competing products: 'in contrast to other rules, these ones do this...'
Most of the article is simply a product listing
What little of it isn't a product listing is basically a chronicle of the company, with advertising copy slipped in between the possibly true, if thoroughly unimportant, facts.
The article is written in ignorance of other, prior wargaming systems, if it insists, as it does, that WRG pioneered the use of historical research in wargaming, which is complete bollocks immediately obvious to anyone who knows the first thing
No matter how prolific these people may be, being prolific alone is not sufficient reason to have an article.
Because this group is so thoroughly unimportant to anyone other than its rather devoted fans, it is unlikely that third party (non-fan-written) references can be found, and that an article could be maintained in a suitably neutral state, without the constant addition of the same old marketing rubbish as we currently see, again and again.
Together, these points make a very strong case for deletion. Mr Maxim (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I would have assumed that a wargames company founded in 1969 would automatically be notable, since few were around at that time, making it almost certainly one of the founders of the genre - yet it appears this one is not. There's only one independent source that provides anything like significant coverage; the rest are basically just trivial mentions in longer lists. If references can be provided that specifically focus on the Wargames Research Group, and demonstrate exactly why they are notable, then it should be kept; but in their absence, it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Andrews

Non-notable Australian TV sports reporter. gHits difficult to get due to common name (shared with an author). CSD declined on the grounds that position in TV media asserts notability. WebHamster14:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Nakon 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A List of iSCSI Software Targets

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list. No real apparent encyclopedic value. GlassCobra 14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not necessarily with prejudice, unless context is added. Nicely formatted list that contains absolutely no context: no explanation of who iSCSI is, whom they represent, or why they are targeting the projects on the list. Without this information, it's hard to even guess what this might be about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I am starting to understand why my article is about to be deleted...

An "iSCSI Software Target" is a special software program that provides an "iSCSI Target" for low cost storage solutions. See: iSCSI. I think perhaps, this article should be inserted into the iSCSI article instead of being deleted... I'll do that. Joey Novak (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whoever can push the button on "Delete this page" I moved the content to a more suitable location, and the page should now be deleted. Joey Novak (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, as nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Fowler (Writer)

A mess of links and non-sourced material. Speedy removed saying this "asserts notability" (I don't see it), and later removed by anonymous user (most likely logged-out author). JuJube (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article was created 10 days ago, still no clear assertion of varifiable notability nor a properly formatted reference. SWik78 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several reliable sources cited to establish notability and provide material for an encyclopedia article, like a whole article about her in the New York Times. Who cares if they are properly formatted? That is solved by formatting the references and improving the article, not deleting it. — brighterorange (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So fix it. JuJube (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you see the notability and think the article should be kept and fixed? It's rather thankless and risky to fix an article when it's on AfD with two delete opinions. — brighterorange (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's been plenty of AfDs that have turned around because one user put it upon him or herself to make the article presentable. I would not argue against a good article being kept. JuJube (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine, I spent 40 minutes cleaning this up into a proper stub. Please let this not be a waste of my time. — brighterorange (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First of all, great job cleaning up the article Brighterorange. It looks a million times better. However, having read all of the external links, I can still only gather that she is a stripper with an education who has her own blog. The New York Times article really does nothing more than showcase a night in the life of a stripper. I still don't see notability worthy of a Wikipedia article. SWik78 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Is this coverage not reliable, significant, or independent? She is also the author of a book to be published by Penguin. — brighterorange (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:TABLOID: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. I would say that at least The Sun and the Village Voice could be disqualified as reliable since they are both tabloid-type publications. SWik78 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, obviously the Village Voice article doesn't count because it is written by the subject of the article. It is used only as the source for the fact that she wrote that article (and a helpful link in case the reader wants to read it). I agree that The Sun is basically a tabloid. But are you saying that the Times article is not reliable? Or the Morning Call, or Wales on Sunday? (There are more out there, too...) I think these clearly qualify the article by WP:N. — brighterorange (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying that NY Times is not a reliable source. I'm saying that the particular article in the Times about the subject, in my opinion, doesn't do anything to assert her notability. Lots of people get written about in the Times that don't deserve a Wikipedia article. I think she is one of those people. SWik78 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In doing so you disagree with WP:N, which says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Is this correct? If you look at the bullet points there, it meets each one of them neatly. It is of course your prerogative to disagree with guidelines, but WP:N does not say that the Times article needs to "assert notability" (that phrase comes from CSD A7, not WP:N). — brighterorange (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not disagreeing with the policy but I think it's possible that you and I are not interpreting the policy in the same fashion which is fine. I think we've both said what we had to say on this topic. Let's get some input from other users. SWik78 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you please explain how you are interpreting WP:N (a guideline, not policy) in a different way? Or are you referring to some other policy/guideline? I don't understand. — brighterorange (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree that the coverage of the subject is significant as the policy states. SWik78 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, let me just say that the biographical NY Times article is entirely about her and is two (web) pages long; the Morning Call and Wales on Sunday articles are also completely about her. To me this is "significant"; as WP:N says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself ... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." — brighterorange (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice.

User:Nakon closed as delete, commenting on his talk page: "Per the discussion that followed the rewrite, I didn't find that the article sufficiently showed how the subject was notable." I complained that we couldn't have reached consensus because only SWik78 and I were commenting after the rewrite and disagreed. So, let's get some consensus! Do the newspaper articles and upcoming book by a major publisher establish this writer's notability? — brighterorange (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources too me, look like enough to satisfy WP:N. More info may become avaliable after she is published as well. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brighterorange has done a fine job of fixup; article is brief, cleanly informative, verifiable, multiply sourced, intrinsically interesting, and notable per WP:N. The woman could well be another Candace Bushnell--or better--or not. And if not we will still want to have this piece of the Comédie humaine succinctly available. Palisade (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per — brighterorange and Palisade. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is all pointless since I'm gonna withdraw the nom. It looks much better now. If someone else feels strongly enough, please wait awhile before renomming. JuJube (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the Illusion

Non-notable musician: no album releases, no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn with Darwen Teaching Primary Care Trust

Contested speedy G11 (advertising). Author promises to include third-party sources, but Google isn't turning up that much. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now has one external source, and others to follow. I've tidied the article up a bit Mayalld (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was recently expanded, has both sources and references. Should not be deleted. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I do like the look of this article now, but when I originally nominated it for CSD, it did fit the G11 criterion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legolas Ericson

Artist of questionable notability, has been deleted before. Most of the wikilinks are red. JuJube (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not inherently notable in his profession, has done work mostly for redlinks (that is, in all likelihood people and organizations that are no more notable than he is). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beginning (film)

Non-notable. Appears to be about a promotional video for a skateboard company. Please note that the article was marked for speedy delete but the author removed the 'Db-spam' tag. PKT (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Author should have been warned for removing CSD (which only an admin should do) and the tag replaced. Collectonian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these references:

"The Beginning of "The Beginning"". ESPN. 2007-08-25. Retrieved 2008-01-10. It has been nearly 10 years since the release of "The End" and everyone on the team has been breaking themselves for this latest project. "The Beginning" will feature full-length parts from some of the newest, upcoming talents in skateboarding, as well as long-awaited parts from the veteran Birdhouse pro team.
Kevin Kelly (2007-10-27). "Hawk totes film to Florence". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Retrieved 2008-01-10. The 11th stop on a cross-country tour unveiling Birdhouse Skateboards' latest film, "The Beginning," belongs to Ollie's Skatepark in Florence. But before the lights dim around 8:30 p.m., the legendary Tony Hawk and several of his Birdhouse team members will put on a gravity-defying show of their own.
Ken Stewart (2007-10-29). "HIGH FLY". The Kentucky Post. As part of a cross-country tour unveiling the lasted Birdhouse Skateboards ' film, " The Beginning ," Ollie's Skatepark in Florence hosted a star-studded demonstration of gravity-defying moves Sunday featuring famed Tony Hawk and other members of Birdhouse.

I'd suggest clean-up instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Transhumanist (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project champion

Prod removed by author. Despite a respectable Google hitlist, I'm not sure this is anything more than a corporate buzzword. Nothing in the way of sources have been provided. JuJube (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unencyclopedic. No source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - Pinto, J. K., D. P. Slevin. The Project Champion: Key to Implementation Success. Project Management Journal 20(4):15-20 (1989)

The handbook of project-based management (1999) J. Turner

Sorry, i dont know the correct formatting to include them in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reue (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source is not encouraging, especially since it suggests a conflict of interest. It doesn't alleviate concerns that this is a corporate buzzword (and thus a neologism which is generally not acceptable content). JuJube (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly the base research into Project Champions is very limited. Many of the related journals use this one as a reference as shown by a google search as well. Sorry guys but I dont know how better to explain it, this is a valid term, being taught as part of project management and used in many books and journals. The suggestion that it is a Neologism would have to mean that this is a word just used for another term, however i am unable to find any other word used to describe this particular term. Reue (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly:

A Project Champion is a senior individual stakeholder whom has a personal interest in a project and convinces others that this project should take priority over others. Project Champions can be advantageous in that they can motivate the progression of a project, but also disadvantageous in that they may influence decision making.

Yes, this is the sort of writing that makes me angry. Vague generalizations, abstract to the point of evasiveness, the remarkable thing about "insights" like this is that, given sufficient leisure and vocabulary, you could have thought it up all by yourself. But really, all you lack is the marketing skill needed to get your brand of complete bollocks noticed. As Gertrude Stein said, there's no "there" there: this is a neologism in search of something to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'My' brand? Sorry but i neither coined nor attempt to market the term. Simpey trying to help others researching the subject and discovering (as i did) that wiki did not contain an artical about this frequently used term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reue (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Common position in the corporate world, you'll find a similar description of the title in any management text written in the last decade. Needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Burzmali (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natali Del Conte

Just an ordinary journalist, not amazingly notable, no major awards Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO at this stage. No WP:RS reliable sources. Given that the podcast TeXtra is not around I doubt the host would pass notability requirements. I understand she is moving on to mainstream tv this year, and if she does so, a delete now should not hinder a fully referenced article being written in the future if she does meet BIO. --Breno ^talk 10:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless more reliable sources can be provided. (The only one I'd say meets WP:RS at the moment is [43]) Notability has not been demonstrated. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she has built a strong following in a short amount of time and as mentioned above is moving on to maintstream tv. The awards will come later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.20.236 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has proven herself to be above an "ordinary" journalist, with a recent promotion to CNET TV, a highly visible technology-themed television channel. Awards are soon to follow. Notability is being demonstrated on a day-by-day basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.9.176 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- can we add Template:Natali Del Conte to the nomination? Jfire (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And delete both article and template. The references put forward so far do not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Transhumanist (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a non-notable journalist. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Breno. WP:BIO lists this set of criteria for creative professionals, including journalists:
- - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  - The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  - The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.

Sorry, the subject doesn't these hurdles. Perhaps at a future date she will, at which time she will merit an articleMajoreditor (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep The subject is now a senior editor with cnet and will be presenting tv segments on Fox News, more noteworthy than many other articles on wikipedia, if someone doubts the validity of this latter statement please say so and I shall willingly provide evidence of that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olorin001 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Natali Del Conte is notable, pls advise how she is so? merely being on television does not make you notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant internet writer. Perhaps the entry is a little long, but she certainly meets the qualifications for notability. She has plenty of appearances and writing, including several articles in WIRED. 208.54.15.104 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The San Francisco Chronicle and PC Magazine as noted here [44]. Also CNET as shown here [45]. Shoessss | Chat 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the SF.com link does not seem to link to a published article, but rather to a blog / and I don't even see the poster Jessica Guynn in their list of regular contributors [46], on the PC magazine list, she contributes a tip and CNET is the place where she will work. Delete for not enough independent coverage on her form reliable sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Clift

AfDs for this article:

Not sure what the current thinking is, but if this guy is notable, then very nearly EVERY academic is notable. His career is not particularly distinguished. If indeed it is the case that all academics are now inherently notable, then I shall withdraw the nom. The page was created by the subject (WP:AUTO) and userfication might be a useful compromise. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy, as nominator. The notability guidelines for academics now appear to be very, very broad indeed. However, if Clift (and others in a similar vein) are notable then we are opening the floodgates to literally 60-70% of the academic population- tens of thousands of biographies regarding (in my view) fairly run of the mill, non-notable people. (The fact that this particular example is a vanity page also irks somewhat). Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he is notable geologist. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a particularly notable geologist within the field, although I agree that this is not clear cut as he obviously has had some success. The question basically is: is every academic (or at least, a good majority) suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, or only those likely to have some impact outside of their field? If the former is true, then I suspect each one of us could add several dozen new biographies to the encyclopaedia tomorrow, but surely Wikipedia is WP:NOT just a collection of indiscriminate information? Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (I think you mean indiscriminate collection, not indiscriminate information—which doesn't make sense). Having a chaired professorship is kind of a big deal, but I don't think it's enough to make a "distinguished career." I don't think all academics are inherently notable, either. — brighterorange (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've reversed the clauses (I think?) from WP:NOT (not an indiscriminate collection of information). Hopefully the meaning was still clear though. ;-) Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The holder of a named chair at a UK university is notable, and will have the publications to support it. There are many people in such positions for which we do not have pages, we should have them. The qualifications used for WP:PROF are in my opinion not over broad, but interpreted very restrictively--few AfDs pass except for full professors at research universities (unless, of course, there is some special reason for notability), these are perhaps the top 10 or 20 % of full-time teachers in higher education--not 70%, not even half. We have made a very small approach to covering this subject area. Of course there are thousands. There ought to be many more of them.

The requirement for notability in WP is NOT impact outside of their field. It's notability in their field. Almost no major league baseball or football players are notable outside of their field. Very few ball players are even known to people who are not fans of their particular sport. He just has to be known to people who follow geology.
Nor is this a vanity page, I've seen vanity pages for academics--they list every committee they've been on, every lecture they've given--this is not one of them--it gives the facts of his career, as it ought to. In fact, it's a little inadequate, since it didnt even list the number of his peer-reviewed publications, or the number of people who cited them, which count heavily for notability. I've added that--its encyclopedic information. There are 77 papers, the two most highly cited being cited 113 and 69 times, respectively. DGG (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And from the previous AFD "Actually, there's quite a bit out there by this fellow. A Google News Archive search shows a number of results regarding his Indus River studies and one BBC article," DGG (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clift has published 77 peer-reviewed papers listed in Web of Science. We have articles about some non-notable sports people. Even minor movie stars have articles. And, I also think that biographies of many notable scientists and social scientists are missing. For example, the biography of Roger Myerson was created after he was awarded the Nobel Prize. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and we are still missing about 1/3 of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, most of the members of the Institute of Medicine, and almost all of the National Academy of Engineering. He's not in the NAS yet, but that has a strong correlation with age as well as merit. DGG (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a Briton, it is unlikely that Clift will ever be elevated to the NAS- the number of foreign associates is quite limited I believe. More importantly, he's not a fellow of the RS either. I have a fair familiarity with the UK geological scene, and I would speculate that it is very, very unlikely that he is ever going to be so elevated. In any case, it is academic (pardon the pun). I would have no objection to including his biography (vanity page or not - and it manifestly is a vanity page...) if he actually were a FRS. He isn't. It's not for us to speculate who is or isn't going to one day get in to the Royal Society. To be brutal, he is a professor at an average university (number 32 in the country, so in about the 35 percentile) in an average department (number 10 in the country, out of about 25, with a research rating of 4C, which is....not at all great). Clift has published one paper in Nature (as a first author, 3 years ago) and one in Science (14 years ago, not as first author and as one member of a very large collaboration). He has won one quite minor prize, with very restrictive eligibility (only those under 40 working in the field of tectonics). He has next to no exposure in the wider media.

However, he is a professor. Judging from their website, there are 9 other professors in Aberdeen's geology department (top universities will obviously have more, lesser universities will have less). Extrapolating that up (say the average university has 20 departments) that makes, as a very rough estimate, 200 professors per university * 120 or so = ~24,000 articles required - from the United Kingdom alone. We can add to that retired professors, those at non-university institutes, government research centres, hospitals, etc. That adds up to 10s of thousands of Wikipedia biographies.

Now if we want that, then fine, although I think it's a very bad idea indeed. Why are professors uniquely notable? What are the exigent circumstances that pertain only to academia? Surely non-academics who have reached a similar level of achievement are also notable, using a similar rationale. So all army officers above some arbitrary rank- say, lieutenant. All police officers above the rank of Detective, or sergeant. All QCs- indeed all senior barristers. Most successful small business owners say, or all traders or analysts at major investment banks. All partners or senior solicitors at legal firms. School headmasters or heads of year. Local councillors and senior local politicians.

That's a lot of people- hundreds of thousands in the UK alone. Now imagine it scaled up to every country in the world.

My point is that Wikipedia would very quickly fill up with articles on people that, frankly, most of us would consider more or less ordinary. The stipulations of WP:PROF are in fact very broad- they could easily be taken to apply to virtually any academic at post doc level or above. Clearly they are meant to be interpreted through the prism of common sense. If we include articles like this one, we are basically saying that virtually anyone who is successful at their job is worthy of a Wikipedia article. That is an interesting precedent to set. Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lister

A litte bit of this and a little bit of that, but at the end of the day, notability per WP:BIO is unestablished. Nothing really doing on Google. brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless more sources are provided to show notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Transhumanist (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is a problem. The author is not that notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability, his books only have one or two reviews on amazon, and the only hits in Google News were mentions of his various elections and appointments in local papers. Burzmali (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. I went to look for sources for the Kerrrzappp!, and found copyright violations instead. The two articles listed are in fact straight copies and pastes of entire copyrighted non-GFDL web pages on this Geocities web site. Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mapulane Surnames

A list without context or much in the way of explanation, written in first-person and having a GeoCities page as the only reference. Prod removed by anon (most likely author). JuJube (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Author has twice already removed the AfD notice from the article. JuJube (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Note have added the article Mapulana as author is the main contributor to that one and it is related. JuJube (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest removing it again. Mapulana is a documented community in South Africa. The article may be written in the first person, essay-style, rhetoric-filled, and generally bad. But a quick Kerrrzappp! using some sources would clear that right up. It is probably best to deal with the originally nominated article on its own. Uncle G (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zavorash

No sources. Simple searches yield nothing notable/nothing at all. Metal Head (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep A quick Google search for Zavorash band seems to indicate some notability, but I'm not really too sure. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe things that come up in the google search do not meet notability. They are little "snipits" of information here and there. Nothing substantial. Also, the findings are only things like lyrics to some of their songs. Metal Head (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some assertion of notability is made. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. Most google links are lyrics. I found one review, though.[47].--Tikiwont (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Transhumanist (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, taking into account the related AfD. Tikiwont (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gameproof

The article concerning the album that this single is supposedly taken from was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Chilli Album. No evidence that this was ever an actual single. Seems to have been a song leaked on the internet and played on a few radio stations last year - nothing more. Delete per notability guidelines at Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the reasons given by the discussants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Chilli Album. Chilli (musician) is herself notable, which gives some license for creation of articles on her actual albums, per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums and songs. However individual songs usually require more evidence of notice. A dedicated article for an individual song on a non-released album (that may not actually exist) is hard to sell. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Nakon 05:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spygate incident (American football)

Not notable enough for separate article. See 2007 New England Patriots season and Bill Belichick for basically the same material, without as much original research. Pats1 ^T/C 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like all the important info is already in the two articles mentioned. Agree that there's no need to have it in a third article.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What policy does this violate? It's a notable, sourced, and verifiable event that received rediculous amounts of coverage in sports media and resulted in unprecidented fines and forfeiture of a draft pick. Yes, it exists in other places, but maybe the solution should be to shorten the mention in those articles and throw a "Main Article: Spygate incident (American football)" tag on top of the section. The fact that both above users are Pats fans raises an eyebrow but I'll assume that's more an effect of the focus of the article than intentional bias. Bleeding Blue 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking only for myself and hopefully adressing your concerns. Full disclosure I am a Pats fan. If that were not the case I admit this AFD might not have attracted my attention. I don't believe it effected my opinion. Certainly the event should be covered. As you said, there was a large amount of coverage. My primary issue is the repetition. I think it's already well covered, and in my personal opinion covered in the right places.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your concern with repetition and agree that we don't need three different places where this incident is discussed in great detail. I just think the better solution is to reduce coverage at Bill Belichick and 2007 New England Patriots season to a short summary paragraph with the (already existing) tag at the top to link to the full article. We could then expand that article to include reactions from various media and players (Tomlinson's "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying" comment and various reactions by Pats throughout the season come immediately to mind), the later revelation that Eric Mangini used the same tactics that he whistleblew the Pats for, the whole "Belichick's running up the score to get revenge" angle, etc. With improvement, this sounds like it could be a good/featured article, if it's kept neutral. Just my opinion, though. Bleeding Blue 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How much of that is true encyclopedic material though? A lot of what you're talking about would make a good column, but not an encyclopedic entry. There are a very limited amount of facts about this "case." I won't rail them off again here, but if you go to 2007 New England Patriots season, you will see them - the pertinent NFL rules, the statements from both the NFL and Belichick. There's nothing else that truly came about. Pats1 ^T/C 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My general point here is that there's very limited scope as to where this article can go. And you can only shorten the information on the other articles so much before context main details get lost. So I just don't see the point in cutting out the info where it fits perfectly (2007 NEP season, 2007 NFL season, etc.) and moving it here, when in fact the 2007 NFL season and 2007 NEP season articles are focused enough (on the 2007 season, and on the 2007 NEP season) that having the extent of information this article could have on those articles would not be a problem. Pats1 ^T/C 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I'm guessing it could probably work either way. I'd like to address you're notability concerns as an aside, however. I'm pretty sure this passes WP:N, which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Just by looking at sites like ESPN and SI alone we could satisfy that. Your point about NFL controversies not generally having articles doesn't hold for two reasons. One, most "controversies" in sports don't have the lasting magnitude of coverage that this one did; and two, the ones that did, do have their own pages. Without looking very hard, I find NFL player conduct controversy and Bad Newz Kennels from the past year or so alone. Using these examples, I would argue that, or instance, BNK does fine as it's own article with mentions on Michael Vick and 2007 Atlanta Falcons season. There's no policy against repeating material on several pages if it's relevant to each of the topics. Bleeding Blue 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Right, my original nom was a bit off. The two articles you mentioned have considerably more scope and coverage than this does. The first deals with many, many players, and many incidents, most if not all of which are legal-related. The second has an incredible amount of developments and a huge scope. A major federal investigation. This incident's coverage, and especially actual developments and information doesn't even compare to those others. And you're correct with repeating material on several pages. That has already been done - 2007 NEP season, Belichick, 2007 NFL season, etc., etc. My issue is not one of notability or reliable sourcing. It's more of a merge request, except there's not really anything to merge, as it's essentially a copy of what's contained elsewhere. I just don't see the purpose in having a separate article when the same amount of information could be (and is) appropriately placed elsewhere. Pats1 ^T/C 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the biggest scandals of the 2007 football season. Burzmali (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and how many other "scandals" in the NFL (2007 or not) were notable enough for their own separate articles (i.e. not in their respective 19**/20** NFL season articles)?. Pats1 ^T/C 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beats me, I would have said biggest in the last few years, but as a Pats fan, I figured that I'm biased. Burzmali (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, the Minnesota Vikings boat party scandal, the Snow Bowl, the Immaculate Reception, the National Football League player conduct controversy, etc. Torc2 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How are the Immac. Recep. and Tuck Rule Game articles "scandals?" The Vikings boat party scandal also had a lot more developments, especially over the long-term, than this did. Pats1 ^T/C 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are controversial events, like this, that people will look for by name and will expect (rightly so) to have their own articles rather than be buried in team or season pages. There's no question, no question whatsoever, that this event had sufficient press coverage to be independently notable. Torc2 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A redirect solves that problem. Pats1 ^T/C 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep but rename - This event was definitely notable. It also involved more than one team, so placing it under one team's history isn't appropriate. This is absolutely worthy of its own article. I also suggest renaming to just Spygate, which currently redirects to an F1 incident. However, this incident is the much, much more commonly known "Spygate" and should occupy the primary article, with a hatnote to direct readers to the F1 incident. Torc2 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "other team" did it involve? Pats1 ^T/C 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jets. Their involvement is not insignificant. Torc2 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From which standpoint? Their original accusations or the later (or actually it was prior, but never hit the mainstream media) emergence of Mangini's possible infractions in 2006? Pats1 ^T/C 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as the latter, that was contained in Jets-Patriots rivalry, in just a short paragraph. And that contained just about all the information that came out on the subject. Pats1 ^T/C 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've just shown that information on a single topic people are interested in is spread between two articles for apparently no reason. It's better in a single article. There's no question that people will remember this and look for it in its own article, and no compelling reason to bury it somewhere in NE's team article. Torc2 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information isn't spread. It's the exact same information in both articles. Pats1 ^T/C 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable incident that stands on its own as an article, supplying ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A major news story this past year and clearly notable in sports history, culture, the NFL, cheating, etc... all things beyond the Patriots page. Tons of information from news sources. Gwynand (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a Pats fan, but I don't think there is any benefit to WP by deleting all of this information. It was a big event that has affected this past NFL season immensely. --Tocino 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 New England Patriots season. It's obviously notable, but there isn't enough to say about it that can't be covered there. --B (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that this article has been copied and pasted to Spygate. So...the whole article history will have to be cleaned up. --Smashville^BONK! 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy/paste move repaired. The article and history are now at Spygate. If someone wants it moved back because this page needs to be a disambiguation page, I take no position on that - just make sure it's a real move, not a copy/paste job.--B (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe this is a very notable incident and should have it's own article, especially if the patriots go 19-0 and win the super bowl. Right now most of the information could be in those 2 articles mentioned but people could expand on it where it's big enough for it's own article. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident is as notable as it has happened. If the Pats lose Super Bowl XLII, this could be rendered meaningless. An aftermath should be added though on how this affected how the NFL handles videotape issues. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:19 AM US EST Jan 21 2008.
Redirect to 2007 New England Patriots season. The incident should be and is covered in the encyclopedia. The question is whether it requires a separate article. I think it can be properly covered in a section in 2007 New England Patriots season. Chaz ^Beckett 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why not have an article on it since it is a noteworthy and controversial event and people will want to look it up? This is far from the only issue that has a lot of overlap with other articles. It has called into question the integrity of the Patriots' accomplishments and the league itself, just like other sports controversies. I wonder if the votes for "Delete" are coming from the NFL's powers that be - the way they quickly grabbed and destroyed those tapes makes it apparent that they wanted this to die quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.180.183 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is one of the biggest sporting news stories of 2007 along with the Mithcell Report. In light of the Patriots going undefeated in the 2007 season it, like the Mithchell Report, raises questions about fair play in winning. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident should not be swept under the rug by Wikipedia!! As others have said, this was, and still is, a very important and newsworthy event that raises questions regarding the New England Patriots' perfect* regular season.--cajuncocoa 19:56, 22 January 2008

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Langmead

This articles about is about a businessman of dubious notability. He is born in a possibly notable family, with notable family members, but his only personal claim to notability is leading a fairly large company with his brother. I don't think it passes WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like spam. JuJube (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references and rewrote the article so that it would be neutral. --Eastmain (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-PLOD Romania

I originally tagged this one for speedy because it doesn't make a claim to notability but the creator of the article has since provided links on the discussion page which allegedly establish the notability of the band. They are all in Romanian, however, a language I'm definitely not qualified to judge the validity of so I'll remain neutral and allow consensus here to decide whether they are notable or not. Redfarmer (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails in notability. Bloodredchaos (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete copyvio from their MySpace. [48] The band sure amazed me when I visited their band page though, considering they're just a couple of kids. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 22:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nunawading to Chelsea (888/889: SMARTBUS)

Is a bus route notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Perhaps, but not this one. The article provides no independent reliable sources asserting notability. Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and the Victorian government sources are not independent. Mattinbgn\^talk 11:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of busroutes or timetables. Nothing else to write about this subject - Peripitus (Talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's a long-standing consensus that bus routes aren't notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on SmartBus the concept ~~could be useful to Wikipedia~~ already exists - oops but a particular route - no. Orderinchaos 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, individual routes are not notable by themselves. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - there's not much that can be written about the route except for where it goes or its timetable (that information belongs on the official Metlink site). The little bit of history (if you could call it that) of the bus route could be incorporated into the SmartBus article. invincible (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hose

Non-notable actor, no secondary sources available, fails WP:BIO. Possibly self promotional given username who created the article. Requested speedy but article creator claims he is huge in the New York scene, although the only link he's provided is to the actor's IMDB profile. I'm bringing it here to get consensus. Redfarmer (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. I added three references to the article about Adam Hose. I also should mention that I never claimed Adam is huge in the New York scene, just noteworthy. He is definitely recognizable to all major industry persons in the New York theatre world. Also, I am not Adam, but I do know him well. Lindsayw427 2:12, 17 January 2008

Delete per WP:BIO, I don't see that he has received significant recognized awards or honors or made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. Altairisfar _talk 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Regional awards and nominations for the same and parts in independent films do not sufficiently indicate notability. A news search reveals only a handful of mentions, all of which are reviews/notifications of the plays rather than articles about the subject. This is indicative of a lack of sufficient coverage in secondary sources and thus a failure to meet the basic notability requirements of Wikipedia. --jonny-m t 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete . No one who has commented here is from New York, or seems to know anything about the theatre business. Altairisfar is incorrect in his statement. Being in the New York Musical Theatre Festival is extremely important in New York City and nominations for Ovation Awards and winning a Big Easy Award are also very recognized and noteworthy. Also, Adam is the star of a film that is recognized in a Wikipedia and is referenced in his article. Please explain how I can further make Adam's bio pass WP:BIO. Lindsayw427 1:08 pm. 19 January, 2008.

Per WP:BIO, the article must show, with verifiable references, that Adam Hose has: (1) Had significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. (2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Also look at WP:BLP. But, since you state on the talk page that you "worked with Adam Hose and helped create his page," you may want to look at WP:COI before making further edits to this article. Altairisfar _talk 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gore effect

A neologism created by a blogger. There is no evidence that the term has has any currency outside blogs or columns authored by the blogger. The article contains large chunks of OR that if removed would leave little content altogther. At the best, perhaps a merge to Tim Blair, but I dont think it is even notable enough for that. Mattinbgn\^talk 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, a non-notable-neologism. -mattbuck 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Effect has a definition in the Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gore+Effect

It has an entry in "The New Climate Almanac" at the Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070216.wclimatealmanac/BNStory/ClimateChange/home

It has been mentioned in the blog of a columnist at the Sydney Herald Sun http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/al_gore_does_it_again_preaches_warming_brings_cold/

It was discussed in the blog for Scientific American http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300004226

These citations are in addition to the numerous entries on various "right-wing" blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Drabik (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources provided by Matthew Drabik. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Urban Dictionary is almost the definition of an unreliable source. The others listed above are nearly all blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources either. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but the multiple uses at least show prolificness. I should probably have been more specific. I'm weak on the position of keep because the sources demonstrate use outside of the area you claim it is confined to, but aren't themselves necessarily reliable in whatever else they present. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, NN neologism. Torc2 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism. The claim that the term was "popularized by Australian blogger Tim Blair" only has posts on Blair's blog as a reference, which fails WP:V as this obviously isn't an indepedended source. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tim Blair's blog is not a WP:RS, whether published in a newspaper of record or not. The whole thing is almost a case of WP:NFT. Orderinchaos 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see which way the concensus is forming. C'est la vie. As for unreliable sources, the Gore Effect is a term of mockery, not a scientific observation. As for non-notable, in addition to the references above, it has been discussed on the Rush Limbaugh show (20 million listeners at any given time) and has several hundred right-wing blog entries listed in Google. Earthday is coming and it is very likely that more observations of the Gore Effect will be noted. If this entry is deleted, I might try again later. Matthew Drabik (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Michael

He's a child actor with a few credits behind him: one minor role in a television debut episode, and as host of a Cartoon Network programming block. Beyond that, while I wish him good luck in his career, I don't see much that would grant him WP:N. Yng varr 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia should keep this entry. Blake has appeared in several national commercials, one worldwide commercial, and has appeared as a guest star on an ABC series and a Cartoon Network series. He has been in a national music video produced by the U.S. Army in conjunction with Christian music singer Mark Schultz, and has been a muse for Macy's print ads for at least one full year. Those are only some of Blake's many acting appearances. More importantly, his hosting responsibilities for Cartoon Network makes him the first kid in history to host a block of programming on National TV for 4 consecutive hours on Friday nights and 3 hours on Saturday mornings. Eleven year old Blake hosts 7 hours of programming on national TV every week. He actually came up with the name for the block "Fried Dynamite" himself. The network executives liked it so much they used it. There is much controversy about Blake right now in the cartoon community as Cartoon Network is adding more liveaction programming to its schedule. Blake's hosting position has been in hot debate amongst cartoon purists and you will find threads written about him and Fried Dynamite on many cartoon forums. It may be hard to find much personal information about Blake because his family fervently guards their privacy. Signed: Blondewitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondewitch (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above: Many people appear in commercials, but I am not convinced that a few commercial appearances satisfy notability. As for the Cartoon Network controversy, isn't that Cartoon Network's issue, not Blake's? Yng varr 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Yngvarr comment: The additional acting work I mentioned was just a response to your first comment which describes Blake as having few credits. I was not using that portion of his career to establish notability. In your last response, you completely ignore what I had labeled as most important. That is that Blake Michael is notable because he is the first kid to be the official host of 7 hours of National Network programming- and he came up with the name for the hosting block.

Signed Blondewitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondewitch (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, he has a few credits behind him. Commercials and as a host of a Cartoon Network segment. I'm not seeing what can be given to notability. WP:BIO, under the Entertainers heading gives these guidelines: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions; Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Further guidelines offered at the basic WP:BIO are: published secondary source material which is reliable, or failing that, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The article as it sits gives nothing to offer otherwise. WP:PROVEIT, the burden of proof is for establishing notability. As for being the first "kid" to host national network television, that can be challenged. Yng varr 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, I said the first kid to be the official host of 7 hours of National Network programming, which he also named; not the first kid to host national network television. The breadth of what he is doing is "worthy of notice" and this page should be treated with common sense. Some sources that I found are: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117973396.html?categoryid=2721&cs=1 Article in Variety.com where the VP of Cartoon Network talks about how Blake was chosen to run his block of Cartoons http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:eYj6QwK8W8UJ:weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/2007/08/kid_to_control_cartoon_network.html+fried+dynamite+blake&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Article in newsday.com entertainment section http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001701.html Article in washingtonpost.com http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117973366.html?categoryid=14&cs=1 Article in Variety that compares the major kid networks and the competition for viewers which talks about Blake’s call for submissions of videos, letters, and artwork on his show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondewitch (talk • contribs) 22:25, January 21, 2008

Are those sources in the article? If you have those sources prior to creating the article, why have you not included them in the article? The burden of proof is on the creator of an article to establish notability. Without that notability, any article may be challenged for deletion, as this entire discussion shows. Just saying someone is notable is not proof, you need to provide sources. Now that you have, why not add them to the article. Yng varr 10:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I put them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.163 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Let me Comment

Blake is an actor. He's appeared in Lemonade Mouth as Charlie! I just think it's unfair that you do that. You can't put a young actor into a Wikipedia article? I think it should not be removed. Thanks. --rtivey (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result wasno consensus. Although upon inspection I agree that it has serious issues, including content and redundancy, AfD is not cleanup. I would, however, urge the editors to improve the article and consider a merge to fix the above mentioned issues. David Fuchs^(talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba in Angola

Five editors have said they support merging this article into other, preexisting articles, in some fashion or another. Upon closer examination of the references, I find that not only is the content inaccurate, but the references either directly contradict the content or are identical (copyvio - specifically from the book "Borderstrike!" and "The Cuban Intervention in Angola"). I oppose redirecting this to Angola-Cuba relations, as I previously suggested, because the title is totally arbitrary. If we redirect this then we should create redirects for every other military force-in-X-country. Jose João (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Suggest you challenge the information or references that you feel are inaccurate so that other authors can have the opportunity to fix them. Consensus was largely reached on the page about the merger of this article into others, but not for its deletion. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly so that experienced editors can look at the content that it was moved into the proper, frequently edited, well known articles. The argument here is whether another page duplicating much existing content is correct or wise. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we disagree - the material should be merged first. Then only, if there's duplicated content that's left over after the merger, should it be deleted. Deleting before or without merging is what I'm against here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First it's well-sourced; second, it's notable. Most of us in the 1970s were surprised to see Cuban troops deploying far from home in an African nation in the name of "solidarity". During the Cold War, a lot of us wondered what Cuba was preparing to do next. Like Socrates says, if you're questioning the sources, edit the article. Mandsford (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to summarily delete the page or material has been demonstrated in the nomination. I agree with User:Socrates2008 that AfD is not the way to address issues with the article that can be improved by stating concerns at the article talk page and boldly fixing it. FWIW, I support further evaluation of the material for incorporation into appropriate articles. Iff all the information has been incorporated elsewhere, removed as inappropriate along the content policies, and potentially re-composed to form a sufficient, more plausibly circumscribed article subject, the non-WP:POVFORK rest of the material may be moved to a better title and then the empty page Cuba in Angola may be uncontroversially deleted under WP:CSD as an implausible search term. User:Dorftrottel 16:15, January 17, 2008
Strong Rename - the title Cuba in Angola makes little sense to me. I strongly encourage a move of the page to Cuban intervention in Angola or something along those lines. matt91486 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent idea; Cuba in Angola now has the title Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991) which is more descriptive Mandsford (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, let me try and be a little clearer.. #1 Cuba did not first send troops in 1975 so that title makes no sense. #2 There is already an article on Angola-Cuba relations. #3 It's not well-sourced, the sources are false. There is no room for improvement because the article never should have been created. Jose João (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you trying to argue here? That there wasn't extensive Cuban military involvement in the Angolan civil war? That's obviously untrue. matt91486 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a serious question? Jose João (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is. I'm actually sort of unclear with what your argument is against the page. Cuban interventionism in Angola is a perfectly legitimate encyclopedia topic. matt91486 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the articles on Angolan Civil War and Angola-Cuba relations. I do not dispute that there were Cuban troops there. I do dispute 99% of the details on the "Cuba in Angola" article. Notice one of the sources repeatedly used is the Que Africaine documentary. If you search for this documentary on Yahoo! you find that the very description of the reference itself is false. Notice the times are completely different. Jose João (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the movie seems to be right here. matt91486 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article overlaps with long standing articles; Angola-Cuba relations (spanning the exact period), Angolan Civil War and Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. The article was created with a bias that had already been carefully and painstakingly balanced in these existing articles. The new title also implies a certain role by Cuba which might not be accurate. Even with the new title it is still the same article as the more generic and neutral Angola-Cuba relations — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I argue the semantics of Cuban interventions in Angola being just as semantically neutral as Angola-Cuba relations (~~which should be moved anyway, to Angolan-Cuban relations to match with conventions.~~ I think the general foreign relations article should take a broader scope as well, and have the intervention essentially as a fork off it. The main article should definitely extend beyond 1991 instead of stopping as the intervention article does. Both articles should remain ~~(though the other article should be moved to a more logical title)~~. matt91486 (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh... no. The consensus is against naming bilateral relations articles by adjective form. Jose João (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sino-American relations, Sino-Russian relations . . . matt91486 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yes, I know that other articles have different titles with your standards, but upon closer examination, there doesn't really seem to be any consensus. Last night when I made the first comment, those were the first two articles I saw and I just assumed that was the standard and not that relations involving China were a special case. I obviously did not look closely enough. I'm still not sure I appreciated your tone in the response, though. matt91486 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Intervention carries the connotation of a situation that requires remedy by an outside party (see Intervention (counseling) and Intervention (law)). This paints Cuba as a rescuer and potentially Africans/Angolans as people in need of rescue. This is not neutral, because some could argue that it was interference more than intervention. A more neutral position is required and not only is Angola-Cuba relations neutral, but it is a long established article, why must it be thrown out and replaced or duplicated??? — Deon Steyn (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm, I understand what you mean about intervention; I don't make that association in foreign policy discussions, but I understand. Perhaps 'Cuban involvement' rather than 'Cuban intervention.' I hardly want the Angola-Cuban relations article thrown out. I'd be just as vehemently against that in an AfD. I think that this article should be summarized in the Angolan-Cuban relations, article, because the main article should not focus exclusively on their involvement in a civil war. The main article should certainly extend beyond 1991, which it doesn't really, and should have histories of ambassadors, etc. Both articles can and should coexist. matt91486 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This new article contains nothing not already covered in the array of existing articles (Angola-Cuba relations, Angolan Civil War, Angolan War of Independence and Battle of Cuito Cuanavale). Instead of adding to these articles the new user decided to tell the story from one biased pov and created a new article, because the existing articles didn't agree with his pov. You can understand the frustration of all other editors and you have to question the need and motive. We now have to repeat the process of balancing the pov for the same content already thrashed to death in 4 other articles. How many more articles to we need??? We can't have the same stuff covered in 5 places each one with a completely different pov. — 196.30.79.194 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree the POV is very biased. But to Sundar's credit when I made serious additions on the Cuito Cuanavale portion which gave the opposing view he was very obliging in keeping that content within the article. Virgil61 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep: im the one who made this article. i'm glad there is finally a discussion taking place after the article was first almost totally removed. i stated the background of this article on the direct discussion page of the article but feel it's necessary to repeat them here for the discussion. all started with watching a documentary on the german-french tv-channel arte. arte in itself is no guarantee vor unbiased or absolutely correct reporting but i do want to note, that this channel is reknown for its high quality reports. i taped this documentation and as far as i can remember it is still available on the arte-homepage. of course, the sourse jose joao mentions (gue africaine) is wrong - he needs to look it up correctly. after this documentation i was highly intrigued by this subject and wanted to know more about it. to my astonishment i found absolutely no mention of it on wiki cuba articles, so i took up research and started a subsection for cuban history. i found so much material that the article quickly became too big, so a decided to make an own article with reference from the cuba history article. of course i also considered the overlapping with many angola related articles but decided against it. looking into these i found them poorly written, poorly referenced, if at all, mostly pretty biased, issues were mixed in that didn't belong there and and fundamental statements were contradictory. i saw no way adding my article without editing most of the angola related articles. i also decided for an own article because it is possible and totally legitimate to copy sections of it into angola articles wherever deamed necessary. in fact, that is also something i had in mind doing. besides, if there is a whole article about an issue, for which i only wrote a paragraph, then this is not duplication. the reason for this article is because it sheds light on a whole new context and on history which has not been portrayed correctly in the past. i am especially referring to cuban independent policies and motives.

i'm deeply astonished with which arguments some fight against this article. considering there was no background info on this topic whatsoever, how can one argue it's inaccurate? i find it very accurate but anyone is welcome to make it even more so. nevertheless i would like to know what jose joao and/or perspicacite have in mind with directly contradicting or identical references. this is certainly not the case within the article and what's wrong with identical references? i absolutely agree with what socrates thinks about this. jose joao / perspicacite also writes, "the article is not well-sourced, the sources are false". what abundance and what better sources can there be? he writes "the article never should have been created" and disputes "99%" of the details: this is clear, he simply doesn't want it.

a change of name has been suggested. interestingly this is exactly what was done right after i put the article into german wikipedia. it was changed to cuban military intervention in angola. here my reason why i only wrote "cuba in angola": in my research i found that a great deal on cuban involvement in africa was not military but civilian. seen from the cuba-history side, this makes sense, so perhaps just simply "cuban involvement in angola" would do.

this article is still very young, i'm still doing research on this topic and i plan changes and more additions. i hope that is ok.Sundar1 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i suggest people interested in this discussion should also look up the contributions on the discussion page of the article. i had stated that if "bay of pigs" merits an own article then so does cuba in angola. deon steyn countered that the former merits an own article because it is well known, thus, the latter does not. no comment. Sundar1 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about the new page title, because it doesn't specify military intervention. Civilian intervention can well fall under it. Also, if you're interested in another source that might be handy for the article or just of personal use, Another Day of Life by Ryszard Kapuściński is a fascinating account of the Angolan Civil War. matt91486 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per much of Deon Styn's rationale. It seems duplicative and already addressed in other articles. Sundar did a lot of work on this and I'd have rather he helped edit the other articles. If the article stands it will need extensive rewriting and balancing. Virgil61 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Subject might be verifiable but reliable sources to establish notability are completely lacking. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Bear

Insufficient sourcing means notability not established an WP:V not met Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did you do a Google search before you claimed could not meet WP:V, "Lightning Bear" stunt man brings up over 400 hits on google, he seems to have a very strong cult following, easily verifiable and seems to have an amazing amount of notability for a stunt man. Ridernyc (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No Ghits on "Lightning Bear" news and 17,000 entries on the web are not unusual and even on the first page there are entries for other things on the term. Did you find any sources that met WP:RS? The article is unsourced and we don't verify information from fan sites of imdb. Please consider providing something better. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB to star5t with, plus [49] [50][51]and to top it off [52].

Are you trying to claim he is not in the films listed in IMDB, or are you claiming that being a stuntman in these movies is not notable enough? One I think it's all easily verifiable, two I think he is notable enough to have an article. I'm really puzzled by the citing of WP:V, notability I can understand but I don't see anything in the article that is not verifiable. Ridernyc (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know how much you know policy so forgive me if this is covering ground you already know but of course being a stuntman doesn't make you notable. Both the bio guideline and the general notability guidelines talk about multiple independent reliable sources. That means you are notable not because what you have done but because of what people have written about you. There are certain classes of people whose position makes them inherently notable because their role inevitably means that people write about you. Obviously not every stuntman in a film deserves an article. So, the nub of my point is that this stuntman is not notable unless he has done something that has been written about in multiple independant reliable sources. That's the guldeline on bio notability. Verifiability is a core policy. Information in the wiki needs to be verifiable by these sources and cannot be original reasearch. Ghits are a very poor measure of notability which is why I asked you for sources. If verifying the information is so easy using reliable sources then I would be grateful if you could list the sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again what claim made in the article is not verifiable? There is no original research at all in the article. I can see your point about notability, but I totally fail to see an unverifiable claims or original research? Ridernyc (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By definition its unverified if there are no reliable sources. Where can we go to verify the information in the article 0 by definition its original research if it was written without reference to reliable sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you think he did not appear in any of those movies and the dozens of sites that list him the credits along with published books are all fake. Sorry but your really not making a point at all here. Ridernyc (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What books? I'm not seeing any mentioned in the article. Rather then lambast me, why don't you do what I have now asked you several times to do and tell me what the reliable sources for this person are. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rider, I think the point Spartaz is trying to make is yes, we can easily verify he appeared in these movies, however this alone does not in itself make him notable. Have there been any stories, articles, or anything by a reliable third-party source that talks about his career? It's not that we can't proven he's been in the movies, but just being in a movie doesn't make you notable. If that were the case, I should have an article as I was an extra in 3 movies filmed in Baltimore. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G10 by Tikiwont. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine louise burns

Non-notable radio reporter with no reliable independant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think someone has added incorrect details, but aside from correcting these I see no reason as to why the page should be removed. Catherine Burns is a notable reporter on Newsbeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.1.94 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No claim to encyclopedic notability has been sourced (or even made). Eluchil404 (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sébé Allah Y'é

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sébé Allah Y'é

No assertion of notability. JD554 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These is no reason to delete this article. There are also other music titles created and accepted on Wikipedia. D@rk ^talk 10:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is not reason to delete the article, the article needs to say why it meets the criteria at WP:N by using verifiable sources. --JD554 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please let this article exist. Please... D@rk ^talk 10:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know if the article can meet the criteria. Someone else who knows (eg you) need to added the relevant information to the article. As it stands I don't think it meets the criteria to stay.--JD554 (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Take out the irrelevant sentence concerning the word "Allah" and it is a one-sentence article. Totally not notable. No merit in retaining the article. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Two sentence article with one sentence being completely irrelevant to the topic. Redfarmer (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs. Specifically

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

This article doesn't demonstrate why the song is notable above and beyond average songs which are (read above) not notable on their own. User:Dark Kyle seems to be making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for keep, which unfortunately, is very rarely valid, and is generally only accepted if sufficient precedent exists as a result of it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Given that the article was nominated for deletion just over an hour after it was created I'm tempted to cite WP:INSPECTOR, but WP:BIAS would do just as well.~~ There has not been enough time to determine whether or not this song fulfills WP:MUSIC, especially considering that most sources are not going to be in English. The artist who sings it is certainly notable, which is the reason I tagged the article for notability rather than CSD during newpage patrol. Now, that being said, this AfD will run for at least five days, so I encourage Dark Kyle to get cracking. Should that fail and the song ultimately not qualify per WP:MUSIC, I would suggest a redirect to Alpha Blondy. --jonny-mt 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 days is plenty of time to do that. In all honesty people shouldn't be creating articles until they can source them, but as we all know people tend to be lazy and jump the gun. Also, I find WP:INSPECTOR to be a fairly useless essay, with no real bearing on anything. As I have commented on the talk page, it is simply an excuse for people to be lazy in their editing. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the problems with this particular situation is that the original editor kept removing the notability tag and then removed a subsequent prod. There was really only one avenue left.--JD554 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. I hadn't examined the page history carefully enough to notice the repeated removal of {{notability}}. Well, then I'll strike my comment about WP:INSPECTOR above (on a separate note, I used to be much more pro-"create in sandbox and move to article space", but I've come to believe that leaving space for collaboration is a Good Thing) and hope that this lights the proper fire under the original author. --jonny-m t 04:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the reason why I want this article to be kept is because there are also other song titles, created on Wikipedia. Like Dreadlock Holiday, Ghetto (Akon song) and so on. Sebe allah ye is one of my favourite songs from Alpha Blondy. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. If this article will be removed, I'll be forced to let my account blocked forever. D@rk ^talk 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This essay section outlines pretty well the reasons this is not a valid argument. If you feel that these songs do not meet the criteria any more than this one, go ahead and nominate them. Also, if you want to be that way and "quit" Wikipedia because one deletion doesn't go your way, thats your prerogative. Don't act like its a threat.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there is one more thing, I want to know. Wikipedia is a community. So I don't know why other users won't help me editing this article. D@rk ^talk 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oni, I've left an answer on my talk page. I'm gonna continue working on Wikipedia but it's really a pitty that this article will get deleted. D@rk ^talk 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no reason to delete given. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Material by Britney Spears

AfDs for this article:

Reason the page should be deleted Thankssir (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankssir why are you trying to delete this article? I worked very hard on it and I see that you must be upset over when "Luv The Hurt Away" leaked? No fans knew about the song before it leaked in 2006, I don't see why you're making a big issue out of it. I'm trying to put only the most accurate information on it. There isn't a reason to delete the entire page because of this, it's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.12.3 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close No argument for deletion is presented. Yng varr 12:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left a notice on the nominator's page informing him/her to provide a reason. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Sullivan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daniel O'Sullivan

Although there are assertions of notability the article fails both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Delete TheRingess (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the link to the artists blog. If you could explain in more detail why the articles fail these stipulations, I can adjust accordingly. bookofdays (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done some further editing to this page. Should be adequate now. Any suggestions are welcome. look forward to the deletion notice being removed! bookofdays (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.135.87 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information into Guapo (band) and redirect, although the notability of that one is a bit shaky too. Not notable in his own right, fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original nom.TheRingess (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done some more editing. Can't see that this page is now unsuitable for entry. If you still feel that to be the case, please explain... Perhaps more specifically. bookofdays (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noticed there were several references missing from this article. I corrected this myself. Tamara Lemur (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Anglin

This does not meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO, specifically he is a local councillor who has not been successfully elected to national office. Although the article attests notability from one episode in which allegations about his private life were made in a local paper, however, as a single event this does not justify a biography WP:BIO1E. The article further suffers from making unverified claims about the outcome of his 2006 -re-election attempt. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Names

An article like this could have encyclopedic value if it contained information about how those names are linked to Islam, and why. As it stands, this seems to be merely a list of names popular in Arab countries, with no evidence to support that they are indeed linked to Islam rather than general Arab culture, and seems to be completely original research. Also, since the article is orphaned, it seems to have little use in Wikipedia to begin with, but this could of course just be because it is a relatively new article. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; There's no way I can ever see this list being definitive. Even if listing names like this was something to do on wikipedia wouldn't a list of Arab names, a list of Persian names, a list of Pashtun names, etc... be much better? I mean there's no reason you can't have a muslim with the surname Smith.--Him and a dog 14:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An indiscriminate list that seems to be composed of every "Muslim name" that the editors have spotted. The majority of names on here are the Abduls ("Abdul-Adl", "Abdul-Badi", "Abdul-Fattah", "Abdul-Ghafur", etc. -- has to be seen to be believed). No etymology, no explanation of a connection to Qu'ran or Islamic tradition, just a bunch of names. Can we add "Malcolm" and "Betty" on here too? Mr. and Mrs. X were Muslims. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the List of Muslim related deletion-discussion--NAHID 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but is there a way we can convert this into a wikibook? Arman ^(Talk) 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elite 4

Not sure if "hacking" makes one notable, unsourced, and Original research VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Urteil Tage", for example, has only 7 ghits, so verifiability seems unlikely. Possibly a vanity / hoax piece. Marasmusine (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Animit

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable defunct band; barely even a claim of notability in the article. "Official site" now a domain squatter. Previous nomination had only one keep vote, based on the claim that since they were on a Clear Channel webpage (now a 404) they had supposedly gotten national airplay -- dubious. Jfire (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenever was notable to begin with, kind of funny that a similar thing is happening right now [53] guess we will get to delete that one in a few years. Ridernyc (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to arborist. Anything useful can be merged at editorial option. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arboring

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the information is already covered in a lot more detail in Arborist. JD554 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you see duplicate articles that discuss the same thing under different titles, then Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is where you should head. This is Articles for deletion. No deletion is required here. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps if there was something worth merging I would have done. This article is merely a dictionary style definition.--JD554 (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How much content step #2 of the merger process involves does not stop that from being the process to use. This is Articles for deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion in any way, or at any stage of the process. Don't bring duplicate articles to AFD just because merging them would be easy. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really can't be merged into other pages, it's just someone's invented term that they're trying to promote on Wikipedia. Do a search, you'll find few references at all to it, and most of the hits are use of the word in a different context. I agree with deletion--Trees4est (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As this is BLP-related, an explanation may be necessary: WP:BLP1E gives examples of one event as "(a) relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election". Arguments are made that Horiuchi would fall under this criteria. Arguments are also made that further newsworthy events such as appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the topic of multiple Ninth Circuit rulings, at least 3 New York Times articles and so on would suggest BLP1E is not applicable. These arguments are more convincing. If there are BLP-related issues within the article, edit them out. Possible vandalism is not a reason for deletion. Neıl ☎ 16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lon Horiuchi

Violates WP:BLP1E, in that this person is notable only for his participation in the Ruby Ridge standoff. The article has been used as a WP:COATRACK in the past; after discussion at the BLP noticeboard it was redirected to Ruby Ridge with a suggestion to merge sourced content there. This redirect was promptly reverted, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. I propose either deletion, or more properly redirection to Ruby Ridge, per WP:BLP1E. MastCell ^Talk 07:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect — Horiuchi's conduct and the surrounding controversy should be briefly discussed in the Ruby Ridge article, but we don't have enough for a biography and probably never will. *** Crotalus *** 07:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I see no difference between the Horiuchi article and Charles Sweeney (pilot who dropped the atomic bomb) or Lawrence Colburn(gunner who stopped the My Lai massacre). This is an example of overuse of BLP - if Horiuchi were dead there would be no question that this article would be relevant to exist, it is heavily referenced (16 citations) and meets all NPOV standards having been edited by more than 50 different editors, with a total of 200 edits. There are 30,000 unique non-WP hits for his name - and anybody who chooses to google his name should be able to turn to Wikipedia for a definitive and neutral account of his actions. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. WP:BLP1E (aka BIO1E) applies to the dead as well. It's an especially good argument here because this individual actually has been the subject of BLP abuse. Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone who Googles his name will be able to read a definitive and neutral account of his actions, in context, at Ruby Ridge, if this article is redirected. Comparisons to other extant articles (which, in any case, are not particularly apt comparisons) fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. Article is perennially used to attack this individual, who only known for one event. It's BLP1E COATRACK, as MastCell says. Cool Hand Luke 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any attacks on the individual, such as adding "Category:Terrorists" are quickly reverted - and are not reason enough to simply delete a useful, neutral and relevant article. Otherwise where would WP be if we deleted all articles that drew anonymous attacks? Certainly be lacking articles on most politicians. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, you're wrong. Obvious vandalism is always reverted, but we're really worried about Seigenthaler-style errors that don't strike anyone as obvious trolling. In fact, an utterly biased misrepresentation was in the article for months, and neither you nor any other editor corrected it—in fact, you initially edit warred to keep it in the article before a more balanced account was finally submitted (and was later verified and cited by you).[54]
  - Second, BLP violations alone are not a reason to delete, but they add some urgency to the case against marginal articles that should be merged per BLP1E. We believe in doing no harm to living individuals. Because every BLP carries the potential of doing harm, we should only host them if they are truly notable in their own right, and not if they're merely used a coatrack. Cool Hand Luke 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was also a sniper at Waco, The very reason that I found this page is because I was trying to find out about Lon Horiuchi's role in two separate incidents. That pretty much refutes the argument that he is listed because of his connection to only one incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.149.152 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His role at Waco was minor, at least by the sources given in the article. Basically, all that could be said is that he was there, period. Again, any involvement he had there should be covered in Waco siege, assuming it is actually reliably sourced and notable. MastCell ^Talk 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article will likely be a BLP magnet for fringe types, though. Yaf (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from the rest of the previous arguments to keep, which i agree with entirely, I thought the article was well-written, informative and interesting. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so you like it. MastCell ^Talk 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its a good solid article, and the arguments against are not compelling enough to me to merit its deletion. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, major WP:BLP violation, should be speedied. Secret ^account 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event, should be covered in connection to the incidents. I realize he was a sniper at both; that just means he can be covered at both articles. This "biography" isn't one at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E does not mean that individuals notable for a single event should not have biographical articles (consider Lee Harvey Oswald or Paul Tibbets), merely that in some cases it is preferable to discuss their involvement in the article about the incident. In Horiuchi's case, if he had merely been the agent who shot one of the casualties, with no further newsworthy proceedings -- such as with a police officer who shoots a criminal suspect in the course of an arrest -- BLP1E would certainly apply. But here, he was also prosecuted for manslaughter, and testified before Congress, as well as his assignment to the Waco incident, resulting in continued public interest and press coverage. The article, like many others involving controversial figures, will need to be monitored for BLP issues and vandalism, but that is not a reason to delete it. --MCB (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The comparison with Lee Harvey Oswald is uncalled for. BLP1E is specifically intended to cover individuals like this. We have no sources in this article except for a few news stories and a court case; that's not enough demonstration of broad public interest to justify that this person should have an article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure typing his name into google demonstrates the fact there's a lot of "public interest" in Horiuchi, and a lot of biased and incorrect sources - that's why it's important WP step up to the plate with a neutral and full context. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ruby Ridge. Both sides have their merits, but I feel that the best way for the competing concerns of WP:BLP1E and this admittedly notable person is in the context of the larger event. To me, WP:BLP1E represents the default position, from which the odd exception like Oswald per MCB occurs. I am unpersuaded that the subject's subsequent court involvement creates notability outside of the parent event - that is simply a continuation of the fallout of original shooting. The subject certainly merits his own section at Ruby Ridge, and all the sourced content that is there should be moved. However, having the larger context will help keep undue weight and fringe positions from infiltrating and remaining in the article. Xymmax (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factory life during the industrial revolution

Original research essay on unencyclopedic topic, with orphaned article. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think we should be deleting articles on notable subjects that merely need a good copy-edit and a couple of extra sources added! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the topic is unencyclopedic and the current version (and all prior versions) violate core policy, not that it lacks a "good copy-edit and a couple of extra sources". Daniel (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, my argument is that the topic isn't necessarily unencyclopedic, and that it only really needs a good hack n' slash along with good references to bring it up to scratch. There are many, many academic sources on the subject and I don't think we should just chuck it out the window because it has content issues. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, being unencyclopedic by itself is not a reason to delete and I don't see it so much as an issue of OR as much as an issue of lack of sources, which is a cleanup issue. Can you clarify your reason for wanting to delete it? Redfarmer (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just needs clean up and sourcing. Ridernyc (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this topic is worth an article, but the current article is so awful it needs to be re-written from scratch and deletion might be warranted to get rid of it. The experiances of workers in Industrial Revolution-era factories weren't uniformly terrible as the article seems to assert and conditions were different in different places and at different times so it is also hopelessly simplistic. This article would get an F if it was submitted by a high school student as it doesn't even begin to adequetely cover the topic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99.9% of the articles on wikipedia would get an F. Ridernyc (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that things are that bad. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on random article 30 times and see how many articles you get that have 0 references. I just checked 20 random articles 15 of them had either no sources or unreliable sources. If I had to give grades I would say 17 of them would get a D or F. If we go by the standards set by this nomination I would nominate the majority of articles I see. By the way I do the random article thing regularly to see the current state of the project, it can be really depressing. Ridernyc (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Ridernyc. The only valid ground I could see for a deletion is if one can find another article that covers this ground already. The author started with a source, a step in the right direction, and the topic of work conditions in 19th century America is certainly notable. "So awful it needs to be re-written from scratch" is a bit of an exaggeration... somehow, I don't think the editor who wrote that has plans to rewrite this article from scratch. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's wrong with an article discussing factory life during the Industrial Revolution? As a history major, I've read a good deal on this subject; surely it passes the notability test. I don't see how it could not be considered notable, let alone a failure to pass other standards (such as NPOV) required to be an article. Nyttend (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve. A notable subject in history and an encyclopedia. Hmains (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Nakon 05:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Wood

Though I'm familiar with the whole sordid affair from the St. Petersburg Times coverage, I'm not sure the subject is notable enough for an article here. All of the sources are from the SPTimes archive. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 05:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into article(s) about relevant cases. Scott.wheeler (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UO Razor

Not notable. This software program is for a very niche user base and other more popular programs do not have Wikipedia pages. This was nominated for PROD but the tag was removed by an anonymous user with no explanation. BondGamer (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N not established. No independent references. -Verdatum (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. It claims the program has all the features of UOAssist, which also doesn't have a page. RJC ^Talk 19:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reviewed this to close it, and in addition to having only 3 users participate, the arguments made so far are extraordinarily weak. This discussion will need to include some attempt on the participants' part to find sources (other than in the existing article), and mention policy/guideline in arguments made. Argument of the variety: there is no article for X so there can't be an article about this are non-valid and must be ignored. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search is turning up no reliable secondaries. I'm not clicking on any more since a boatload of them are crack/warez sites and I'm not getting internet herpes for the sake of an online tool which has been around long enough for interested parties to source. Someone another 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more of them are just registered domains for sale. A flash through google news and books is providing nothing either, zero for news and 4 for books, none of which are relevant. Someone another 11:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page was orphaned until October 2006 since its creation on Wikipedia when it received a single link from the Ultima Online article. It remained its only link until I recommended it for deletion. I don't know how else to establish the non-notability for this page. If it was notable, wouldn't more people be coming here to comment on it? - BondGamer (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry is asking those involved to check that reliable sources aren't just a few mouseclicks away is all, which is not unreasonable, hence why I had a look before commenting. Nobody had stated whether any attempt to locate sources had been made, articles do sometimes get deleted when sources are available just because nobody checked. Someone another 14:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "very niche" is putting it kindly. Highly non-notable bit of software. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The nominator's concern was met during the AfD. Also, regular, long-running TV series are generally notable. However, the page badly needs some secondary sources to establish notability. I am tagging for sources and a re-run of this AfD would be in order if they cannot be produced in a reasonable time. TerriersFan (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the box

This seems to be an insignificant article, as it is less than four sentences long. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1, very short article containing no context, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, doesn't assert notability even with context added. I may be wrong but I don't think that TV shows are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TPH, there was more than enough context established: it's a TV show, and thus a valid stub. Whether that TV show is notable is for PROD/AFD to decide. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content. ~~This article purports to be about a television program, but I can't even figure out what country it aired in.~~ The show doesn't appear to be listed in the IMDb and there are no sources provided, making it unverifiable. However, it may be possible to improve this article before the AfD period ends. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now identifies the country of origin, but there are still no sources. While the show did exist, I have not been able to find much information about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source given makes a strong case for notability if it can be verified, which shouldn't be to difficult. What's the Australian equivalent of TV Guide? Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Carbonell

Vanity page with no claim of notability other than authoring a self help book. References given are the subjects business website, a link to where you can buy his book, a message board, and an online editorial written by the subject. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Teleomatic (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability. ― LADY GALAXY 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I wrote the article so obviously I think it should stay. He is a notable author and a notable researcher. Moreover, his techiniques for treating Anxiety Disorders are unique and innovative. It is not a "vanity" page. Unkle25 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can appreciate that as the author of the article you want it to stay, but notability must be established, not just asserted. Please see the general guidelines for notability (WP:Notability (people)) as well as those specific to academics (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)) for what is considered notable on Wikipedia. Teleomatic (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete He is a notable author- so the article should stay.Paulee24 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources showing that he meets the notability guidelines have been found. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as two more days of discussion won't make a difference. east.718 at 23:18, January 20, 2008

Collapse of the United States

I deleted this speedily as nonsense, but it might make sense in a weird, Nostradamus sort of way. So I bring it here to avoid undue haste. At any rate, it looks like OR, nonsense, and the (pseudo) references do not help much. Dloh cierekim 04:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This kind of nonsense happens all the time in tabloids. I actually thought I was reading a tabloid. Delete per nom. I am curious as to where the articles creater got 52 republics from (I assume the 50 states + Puerto Rico, but what about that 52nd?) TJ Spyke 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 52nd republic that I mentioned in the article refers to Guam. GVnayR (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that it matters since this tabloid-esque prediction won't happen, but what would happene to the other US territories (Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands)? TJ Spyke 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to the article, they will form part of a sovereign nation with Hawaii. lol J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To those who don't want to check the "sources". The Trinity ref says nothing about a collapse, only that the economy could be thrown into chaos if China converted the US dollars it has into other currencies (which it says is unlikey to happen). ABC Australia just says that the US would collapse as a superpower, and mentiones nothing in this article. Power of Narrative is just a general criticism of the US. Lew Rockwell appears to be a fictional history page written like its from the future (it refers to 2012 as the past). Secrets of Survival just talks about Hugo Gavez predicting the demise of the US and that Muslims look like Mexicans and Mexicans can sneak anything in the US, doesn't talk about anything in the article. The blog talks about how the US is an empire and he can not see it lasting, and screws up basic facts by saying that 192 countries is 70% of the worlds countries (despite the fact that there are only 193 soverign recognized countries). So in summary, only 1 of the refs mention a collapse of the US and even that ref doesn't mentione anything in this article. TJ Spyke 05:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure crystal ballery with no relevant sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the obvious. BJAOAN maybe. hateless 05:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is WP:CRYSTAL if I ever saw it. The person has pinpointed the collapse to within a one month period. Wow. Redfarmer (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously it misses the part about the inevitable Reptilian humanoid takeover as well.--MONGO 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this version as nonsense. It's actually possible that a good article could be written about predictions of U.S. collapse, but this isn't it. *** Crotalus *** 07:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People can read whatever into Nostradamus' prophecies by interpreting things in different manners. They are most accurate after the events have happened so that it is possible to find a fitting interpretation. This article is complete crystal-ballery without reliable sourcing. Wait until September please, and if the United States has collapsed then, I promise that I will vote to undelete this article on DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per much of what is said above, its just silly. I could see a point in a article discussing the break up of the US in fiction (it happens a lot) but this is really not that.--Him and a dog 14:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just added a book reference about Nostradamus' role in predicting the collapse of the United States. GVnayR (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not exactly WP:NONSENSE, but clearly WP:OR loosely based on the sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I predict Delete i heard predictions like these come and go over the years especially in the year 2000 but this WP:OR is plainly silly "Southern Americans will take advantage of the collapse to reform the Confederate States of America and use their influence to revert NASCAR back into a regional sport" ... however if after September 30th, 2008 these events do indeed come to past and NASCAR onces again become just a southern thing and Alaskans become Canadians please feel free to take it to WP:DRV... oh Nostradamus shall the #17 rise in the point standings to receive the coveted trophy of champions.... ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 19:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The collapse of this article will take place some place between 17 January and 24 January 2008. I mean Delete. This is clearly OR and a bag full of silliness. Also, how exactly will the US collapsing free Quebec? - Revolving Bugbear 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ballish, original research that smells like a hoax, and is a complete load of bollocks. I predict snow. —Travis ^talk 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ball, no original research and WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Quatrain 186 predicted that a "merde-provacateur" would, when the sun was in Capricorn, squat at what he called "Via que Pedea" and take a dump. Prophecy fulfilled! And you thought it all stopped with 1999 and 7 months. Mandsford (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Title is unlikely to be searched for in this context, Nostradamus predictions are not necessarily independently notable, and there are also elements here that smack of OR and crystal ballery (in it's most literal sense for once). 23skidoo (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal balls, in every sense. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL with some WP:NPOV thrown in to boot ("the arrogant attitude of American Liberals"?). If the United States actually does collapse in September, there'll certainly be an infinitely better and much more reliably sourced article to write about it than this. But let's just say I won't be holding my breath. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in October (Kidding; delete now!) The Zig (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so speedy, its like you did it yesterday. Utter rubbish. i have the exact same opinion as user:bearcat has. 67.185.26.202 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per criteria G1, G3, and G4. Dalekusa (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 14:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Null instantiation

The lemma is not universally used in linguistics; according to the article, it has been coined exclusively for the FrameNet project. Notability is therefore not established. Does not seem relevant enough to justify {{mergeto|FrameNet}} instead of immediate deletion. Ddxc (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the nomination... the article seems to be about computer science, while the nominator talks about natural language. Or am I missing something? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The FrameNet project this is part of appears to be an attempt to provide an online resource about aspects of natural language. the wub "?!" 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think this term is general enough to warrant inclusion; besides, WP:NOT a dictionary. — mark ✎ 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed by Croft in ISBN 0198299540, by Valvered-Albacete in ISBN 3540245251 (which is an ICFCA conference report), and by Fried and Östman in ISBN 9027218226. I stopped after the first three. There are plenty more, and I haven't even looked for journal articles yet. The PNC is satisfied. I remind the nominator that we are supposed to look for sources ourselves before bringing things to AFD on grounds of notability. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonette Ehlers

Failed WP:BIO to denote notability. Luis Augusto Peña ^(talk) 03:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, her invention is probably notable, but she herself isn't, yet. hateless 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Does not meet notability. ― LADY GALAXY 14:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her invention already has its own article, and there doesn't seem to be much else to say about her. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct metal deposition

Appears to be a transcription of an advertising brochure. The topic may merit coverage but this form seems inappropriate. Retarius | Talk 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds exciting! perhaps get someone who knows something about metalworking to comment. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See this advertising page and this advertisement disguised as a 'blog. —SlamDiego_←T 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Think this ought to be Redirected as per policy on things to consider before AfD. Have left a comment to this effect on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Engineering#Issues_of_ongoing_concern as they are better position to tackle this. It is an important technique.--Aspro (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a fine idea, but could you just submit an opinion of “Redirect to ____”, where you provide a specific article to which you believe that redirection would be appropriate? —SlamDiego_←T 02:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I remarked on the Project Endineering page: This is a registered trade mark, so really ought, I think, be redirected to Selective laser sintering to help readers who search on either 'DMD' or Direct metal deposition . The technique it depends on however is call Direct laser powder deposition and I don't seem to be able to find that. So maybe that needs a mention. I am out of date on this technology. In my day, we had to make do with spaying metal or carbides through a hot plasma arc. This is an important technique of adding material to where one need it. I haven't voted here since wiki-lawers like to point out that AfD's nominations shouldn't be applied until after a 'Redirect' has been at least considered as one of the options -which they tell me is clearly stated in black and white somewhere in the AfD policy. Here in an document prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy on the method. [55] --Aspro (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, old-timer, I at least appreciate your comments. But I'm not even a has-been when it comes to this stuff. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Neıl ☎ 10:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Work 14: The Color of Money

No sources verifying the notability of these mixtapes. All they can be is a track list. It's not even clear whether these are official or not. I'm nominating these for the same reason:

Spellcast (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 03:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these articles make any claims that these mixtapes were in any way notable. They mention only artists responsible, their release dates, and their tracks. RJC ^Talk 03:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mixtapes, they fail to assert notability. Mixtapes aren't usually verifiable anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows featuring mental illness

Lacks notability, unmanageable and far too selective list that is, at best, served by a category or discussed in the appropriate mental illness articles as part of the over all discussion of that illness in popular culture. Failed PROD (with reason of "probably controversial"). Collectonian (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The criteria are far too broad for this -- I agree that Monk deals with OCD quite prominently, but a lot of these are far less obvious. This list is maybe 0.01% complete, not to mention quite indiscriminate and unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is nothing but medical shows and crime dramas. I think it would be hard to find a medical condition that has not been featured on ER. There is nothing notable about this at all. I could see if they listed Monk since the main character has OCD and it's a main component of the show, but I'm sure that is already covered on a list of characters somewhere. I'm pretty sure every long running tv series could be included in this list since there seems to be no inclusion criteria. Ridernyc (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is important for a: research purposes, and b: support for people with mental illnesses. Please allow it to organically expand (with proper sourcing!. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Ridernyc and TenPoundHammer-K a ng ie 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is original research and fancruft. ― LADY GALAXY 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to believe that this stayed up as long as it did. It's the classic indiscriminate list, where the names of some TV shows are listed after a particular disease, with no clue as to why. While I commend Librarian above for urging that this may have potential, it's not at all helpful either as a research tool or as a show of support for a person needing treatment for a mental illness. Clinical depression is not helped by watching an episode of "General Hospital", nor by seeing in a Wikipedia article that the illness was featured on a TV show. Mandsford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With apologies to anyone who finds the page useful. No clear inclusion criteria. What does "featured" mean -- does the illness have to be part of the main plot to be counted as "featured", or merely appear? Does the illness merely have to be named in the show? Does it even have to be named? Many fictional characters have unique traits and problems; they could be deemed by Wikipedians to have some illness or other, which would be OR. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barzilai paradox

Promotion of work that is not notable, not peer-reviewed, and nowhere simultaneously original and correct. —SlamDiego_←T 02:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know enough to say whether the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Press is peer reviewed, or whether they would be an appropriate place to establish a mathematical concept in game theory as peer reviewed. I will say that I turned up one person who absolutely hates this guy. A professor at Columbia named David Krantz has an eight-page working paper from 2005 on his site that criticizes just about everything one could about him, including this paradox. Krantz works off of a paper of Barzilai's presented at the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, which isn't listed as a reference in the article but may have been superseded by the ASME Press book; in my field, acceptance of a paper at a conference counts for absolutely nothing in terms of peer-review, but I understand that this may be different in engineering; GScholar shows three citations of this paper, one of which is Barzilai's and another that is unintelligible. In any case, Krantz's bile might or might not speak to notability, an engineer would have to speak to peer review, and I don't believe that a concept's being "nowhere simultaneously original and correct" is currently listed as a criterion for deletion. RJC ^Talk 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being simultaneously original and correct would speak to notability. Being correct would speak to whether it were pseudo-science, and to how the article currently presents its subject; the article could in theory be amended (rather than simply deleted) to compensate for the incompetence of the work. (Lack of notability would remain a problem.) —SlamDiego_←T 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Barzilai paradox is part of Barzilai's work with regards to his research into the mathematical foundations of utility theory, decision theory and measurement theory. Krantz is one of the authors of the book "Foundations of Measurement" which is part of measurement theory. Barzilai has found errors in measurement theory, especially with its mathematical foundation. He produced a new theory of measurement that does have a mathematical foundation. Please note that there is no proof in literature that the operations of addition and multiplication apply to the scales produced by classical measurement theory. His work is of importance and notable because of its implications in all fields that relate to measurement theory including utility theory, decision theory, measurement theory and economics. The 2004 IEEE paper indeed superseded the ASME Press book. I would appreciate some feedback on how to prevent deletion. Ruud Binnekamp (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: As a beginning, find and cite examples of Barzilai being published in peer-reviewed publications of economics or of psychology, which are the fields to which his theory would apply. —SlamDiego_←T 12:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I for one would settle for a reliable source (not written by Barzilai) calling the Barzilai paradox by that name. If such a source exists, we can discuss notability, which is a more subjective criterion. If it does not, then notability is irrelevant since even the name does not qualify for inclusion per WP:NEO. --Zvika (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Krantz paper referred to above calls the paradox by its name. Ruud Binnekamp (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The Krantz paper fails as a reliable source: it is just an attack posted on his webpage. Something other than that would be necessary to show that this is not a neologism often-repeated by Barzilai in papers which get published for demonstrating something modestly related to it. RJC ^Talk 17:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The Krantz paper uses this name with quotes, implying that this is not an accepted term. Sorry, I'm not convinced. [It also says this "paradox" is nothing more than wordplay, but we agreed to focus on terminology rather than content for now.] --Zvika (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And, just a reminder, WP:NEO sets a much higher bar than a single paper. --agr (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One independent GScholar ref does not establish notability and also the title appears to be a neologism (see WP:NEO). I would encourage the nominator to drop the "nowhere simultaneously original and correct" claim as it is a potential distraction as RJC suggests. --agr (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay. I don't need to fight that battle here, so I've withdrawn that part. —SlamDiego_←T 10:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no citations of this work in the ISI World of Knowledge, nor does "Barzilai paradox" generate any WoS hits. I think this means there's no scientific equivalent of "widespread coverage" of the topic in reliable secondary sources required by WP:N. I see no strong evidence that anyone but Barzilai himself is working with this idea, therefore no evidence that it's notable. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a neologism to me. --Zvika (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC) I hereby withdraw my vote. --Zvika (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to deletion I would like to register an objection to deletion because the reasons given for deletion are baseless. Also, Krantz's personal attack is ugly and so is the insistence on referencing it. Ruud Binnekamp (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Baseless? Where are the references to peer-reviewed work by Barzilai or to peer-reviewed work by others about the ostensible paradox? (Krantz's personal attack isn't particularly ugly, and amounts to no more than calling Barzilai on his failure to actually attend to the literature. Meanwhile that failure causes Barzilai to claim that Krantz &alii have ignored issues that they have instead discussed at length; Barzilai's work is no less a personal attack, but in his case the attack is quite mistaken.) —SlamDiego_←T 03:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Let's try to keep this discussion civil and constructive. Ruud, I said above that if you can find at least one WP:RS, not written by Barzilai, which calls Barzilai's paradox by that name, then that would be a step in showing that this article is not WP:NEO. Can you provide such a reference? The others in this discussion have not been able to do so. --Zvika (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article should stay. The paradox is original, it doesn't matter what the name of the paradox is but it was proposed by Barzilai. The contradiction brought out by the paradox is glaring. Saying that it is not original and correct is either an indication of lack of understanding of mathematical logic or an indication of bias or both. The papers in the reference section have been presented in conferences, workshops and seminars beginning earlier than 2004, including Dalhousie University's Industrial Engineering and Math departments, the Math department at Waterloo, before a Math/Economics/Business audience and Mathematicians and Game theorists at Tel Aviv University and the Technion, the Math dept. at Haifa University and many international meetings including the annual meetings of the Soc. for Mathematical Psychology in 2005, 2006, 2007. Barzilai also introduced his work in the Canadian OR Society(CORS) Bulletin and in other distribution lists. This is the ultimate form of peer review - in the open as opposed to the journal forum which usually has a few anonymous referees. Anonymous refereeing is only one form of peer review and is susceptible to abuse. The intrinsic contradiction shown in the paradox is important to decision theory, utility theory, operations research, economics, measurement theory, and mathematical psychology. There is no merit to the claim that this is "not notable". Assuming that the page is not deleted, material such as a numerical example, more details in the context, etc., will be added. Uvenkata (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for clarification. Since I assume that you know something about this topic, I was wondering if you could provide some clarification regarding peer-review and the like. Papers presented at invited lectures don't count as reliable sources, and I'm assuming that conference papers are accepted on the basis of an abstract, not as the result of peer review. What I am interested in, however, is whether any of Barzilai's work that deals primarily with the existence of this paradox has been accepted for publicaiton 1) in a peer-reviewed journal or academic press and 2) in a journal in the field of game theory/decision theory. I would also like to know whether anyone else has referred to the Barzilai paradox in peer-reviewed media in the field. Your statements about "true peer-review" do not persuade me (I'm an academic), and do not lend credence to the existence of proper sources. (P.S., could you condense your comment to a single paragraph? I think it is resulting in some strange formatting in mine) RJC ^Talk 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification: Wikipedia does say that it needs a reliable source. Nowhere does it say that this implies a peer-reviewed article. Nor does that need to be in Decision Theory or Game Theory. The ASME press paper is peer-reviewed. The IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics paper is on the record, it is published. Nowhere in any *reliable* outlet have these published works (these are Scientific outlets) been refuted. I don't understand the fuss! Moreover, Decision Theory is extremely important to Engineering (ASME and IEEE included). Preference modelling (utility?) is the basis for Engineering Design. So why can't we accept that the ASME Press as a significant outlet? How do we define 'reliable' then? The debate was originated by a user who claimed that the paradox is unreliable because it is unrefereed and then refers to unrefereed posting by Krantz on his (Krantz's) website (the Krantz paper does not appear in a scientific publication). To say that this is illogical is an understatement.Uvenkata (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply 1: The criticisms by Krantz paper have not been invoked in arguing for deletion. The Krantz paper was noted here by RJC no more than to illustrate the paucity of outside references to Barzilai's work, at a point where RJC had apparently not settled on an opinion about deletion. The only editor who has thus far attempt to have the Krantz paper weigh in the question of deletion is Ruud Binnekamp, who argued against deletion based on the Krantz paper. You need to be far more careful before asserting that your adversaries are illogical. (If you wish to argue the issue, separate from that of deletion, of what references should be included in the article while it lacks appropriately peer-reviewed references, then please do so at Talk:Barzilai paradox, not here.) —SlamDiego_←T 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply 2: It might be useful to have explicit distinctions drawn between merely [1] being submitted to review, and [2] publication in a peer-reviewed volume. Knowing that something were submitted to review wouldn't tell us that it had passed review; submitted work can fail review. Publication in a peer-reviewed volume shows that the work passed review. And peer review involves review by the relevant experts. It won't do to note that engineers use decision theory — everybody uses decision theory. (My father, who was an engineer at one of the most prestigious engineering institutions, was certainly no expert on abstract decision theory.) Imagine a supposedly revolutionary work of fundamental mathematics that were only published in a volume of accountancy and never discussed in any journals of mathematics. Certainly accountants use mathematics (it's the foundation of accounting), but that doesn't make them peers. (Worse still if we didn't even get the non-expert opinions of the accountants.) And note that the issue is attention. If a significant controversy about Barzilai's work played-out in peer-reviewed journals, then it would be notable work even if refuted. Instead, the peer-reviewed journals aren't refuting it in the more general context that they are paying no attention of any sort to it. —SlamDiego_←T 11:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In reading the article, without considering the lack of independent references, I cannot see how this concept is notable. The only paradox here is why would someone consider writing an article about a concept that seems to be only mentioned in a book written by a person after which the paradox is named. Alan.ca (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. There are no reliable sources suggesting that the paradox described is real; arguments to the contrary invite us to ignore Wikipedia:reliable source#Scholarship and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in not demanding peer review from within the discipline, which seems to speak against rather than for its passing Wikipedia:No original research. After repeated requests, no one has produced any peer-reviewed sources which discuss the concept other than its creator. The best that opponents of deletion have done is to note that Barzilai himself has managed to get a paper in which the paradox was discussed published in a mildly-related venue, but given the fact that it seems to have been largely disregarded, this seems insufficient to establish notability. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no evidence of any reactions by other scholars to Barzilai's paradox other than David Krantz's paper. A scientific idea that, several years after its conception, does not occur in a single publication other than those of its author just doesn't meet our usual notability criteria for such terms. The notability criteria for science topics are already lower than those for many other topics, but we can't include every little bit. It can't see how it would meet any other criteria, either. E.g. just one scholar debunking it in an unpublished paper is not enough controversy to make it notable. Of course all this can change in the future. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC) [Modified byHans Adler (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)][reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eggology

Somewhat passes notability with 15,000+ GHits; however, a company that makes egg products is not exactly something I'd call "encyclopedic". --tennis man 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you never know! an article I nom'd for AFD recently was kept and they make glass windows!? I don't eat eggs, but regardless, i'd say this company is N/N per WP:CORP = Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the page appears to be a copy/paste job from some other wiki. Did a bit of cleanup. -mattbuck 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the article's author has commented on the talk page. -mattbuck 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google News confirms that newspapers across the US have run blurbs on them. Nothing really significant on their own, but the volume suggests notability. Burzmali (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to go on to their website where there is a section called "press", it lists countless articles where they have been mentioned.. but alas, by conservative estimate I would say that around 99% would be either payed advertising or pretty much trivial. I would guess that the same would apply to the majority of the google results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep. A glance around Google New seems to indicate that they appear to have invented "salmonella-safe" eggs. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Huge deal in the 90's. - Revolving Bugbear 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The article looks like spam to me. None of the references in the article say anything about the company itself, and while it has had a small amount of coverage in news sources it seems a bit too thin on the ground. Snthdiueoa (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Coverage is coverage, and it does seem that some note has been taken of this business, which produces tangible goods, some of which are sold directly to consumers, so it's the sort of business that should attract that kind of coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have significantly expanded and reinforced with citation the content of this article; compare the version nominated to the current version. It does appear to pass WP:CORP, but not in the blaring way that larger or more mainstream companies do. Much of the press on Eggology exists in niche industry publications related to its product lines; this will be the case for many relatively small but nonetheless notable firms. I don't tender this as an excuse, but as a factual statement. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. It does still need a lot of work, no doubt about that, but I think it passes minimum muster for retention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It still reads a bit too much like a press release to me. However the references do seem to imply that it has achieved something of note. I'll change my nomination to weak keep, but it also needs to be tagged with {{newsrelease}}. Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not quite sure why you say that it reads like a press release. It is true that the coverage is not deep yet, but that is partly a consequence of this being a private vs. public company and partly due to the niche product focus mentioned above. Press releases tend to focus on one event and are POV, and I don't think this article falls into either of those bins. If you are referring to the relatively positive tone, I don't think that having a positive tone is POV if the available source material is treated in an NPOV manner. Is there another factor than these that make it read like a press release? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S. I've removed two additional sentences from the Products section as simply providing sources for items in the infobox seems sufficient. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Density (universe)

Pseudo-science / ufology / twaddle. We could delete the present state of the article on the grounds of no context but I will do the author's job for them and say that it comes from Cassiopaea. We deleted a set of related articles back in 2005: Laura Knight-Jadczyk, Cassiopaeans and 6th density. I doubt if it has become any more notable in the last two years. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR = mebe I should begin writing articles about Physiology of Yoda da ancient jedi mastah or The magical effect of yoga on the inner self? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability is my reasoning for deletion. The fact that I think it's complete and utter bullshit would just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so go for the first reason. - mattbuck 02:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this hoax. It's not even OR. It's fraudulent. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awghhh, so you're saying I shouldn't start thinking about creating my article about YODA? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and non-notable philosophy (to be charitable). Was deproded by creator without solving the PROD concerns at all. Excellent research, RHaworth. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely OR. The article claims that the universe has seven densities. About the seventh, it states, "7th Density is where you are in Union with the One where you merge back with the 'Is-ness' of 'All that IS'. No more 'I' just one Being. Call it God if you like." This statement is not attributed to any source, not even a crazy man's blog. RJC ^Talk 04:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete flaky original research. And I think I smell WP:BULLSHIT. Dethme0w (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, although good faith should be assumed that someone just has an healthy imagination and ignorant of WP's rules. hateless 05:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. “Original research”. —SlamDiego_←T 10:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is indeed original research. Unreferenced too, at that. ― LADY GALAXY 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and nonsense. JJL (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research; a load of claims that seem dubious to me. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, citing WP:OR and WP:N. Even if bizarre, pseudoscientific theories may be notable if there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - though, in most cases, the notability rests with the author or proponent of the theory. Either way, there's no data here to suggest that this is anything more than an original essay. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OR and WP:N. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per no original research, unverifiable per WP:V and possible WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 8th density is the packing of all matter into a snowball Mandsford (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jessee

The first AfD for this person ended in a no consensus. While this was a correct close considering the votes, there are still problems with this article. While Jessee has been covered in reliable sources, the problem is that all of the sources have covered Jessee for one thing and one thing only - making a penalty that his team that didn't even affect the outcome of the game it was a part of. Per WP:BLP1E:

When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

To this date, all coverage of Chris Jessee in reliable sources has been in the context of his Holiday Bowl screw-up, and nothing more. His screw-up wasn't even that important in the scope of college football - it was in a second-tier, non-BCS bowl game and the penalty itself didn't even affect the outcome of the game (the Texas Longhorns, who employed Jessee, won easily despite his mistake). Further, almost the entire content of this article is already in the main 2007 Holiday Bowl article - this article has nothing new to add about who Jessee is or what else he's done. Per this site's policy on biographies of living persons and the fact that this site is not a news source, this article should be deleted and/or redirected to the main 2007 Holiday Bowl article, since Jessee has done nothing of significance outside of that event. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this nomination is out of order. The article just survived an AfD less than a month ago. That AfD closed with a no consenus in large part because the early votes were in favor of deletion. Once the stub was turned into a better article, the trend changed towards keep. The article shows multiple reliable sources, far more than are required by the notability guideline. Force10 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The BLP issues with this article still haven't been addressed. Again, just because he got media coverage for a single incident does not make him suitable for an encyclopedic article. Almost all of the sources are about the action he did, not the person himself. The entire article is redundant to what is already in 2007 Holiday Bowl and separate article about him is unnecessary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And saying that article's improvement changed the votes to "keep" are misleading. Only you voted for "keep" based on the improvement of the article (and blew off any and all BLP concerns); the other keep votes after User:Paulmcdonald began improving the article were (discounting anonymous trolls) were an admin who wasn't sure about either keeping or redirecting and a user who voted keep on the same reasoning as someone who had voted to delete the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are just forum shopping. You tried to delete it and that failed. You proposed a merger and haven't even gotten consensus for that. Now, you are trying again with the deletion. This nomination is improper and should be rejected Prima facie. Force10 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable coatrack. Realistically, the article is about an unusual football down. Interesting as it was, the down doesn't reach the level of The Hail Mary (American football game). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burzmali (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have plenty of articles that are not about the very best or most outlandish or the most famous. We have room for both Al Gore and Levi P. Morton. We have room for both Houston, Texas and Alpine, Texas. Just becuase this person is not as famous as some others does not mean that his article should be deleted. The 15 independent sources are more than enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Force10 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may meet WP:N but as a living person the article also has to follow WP:BLP and it doesn't. And right now, there are no sources that can fix that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for my reasons at the first AfD...although I will say that the first AfD probably could have been overturned at DRV. There was clearly a consensus for a delete/redirect. --Smashville^BONK! 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You mistakenly equate "delete" with "redirect/merge". The later is not a deletion. Mergers and deletions can be done or undone at any time and do not have to come to AfD. Therefore, a "merge" comment is more similr to a "keep" comment than a "delete" comment. Force10 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. If ever there was a case for WP:BLP1E, this is it. Subject is notable only for one very minor incident. This deserves one or two sentences in the Holiday Bowl article, if that. --MCB (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Database as an IPC

Nonnotable & unverified tags unaddressed after several months. Article was written by one editor with no sources. Google search for "database as an IPC" only yields wikipedia-based links. According to talk page, topic is not found in antipattern texts. Multiple editors have brought up afd on talk page. Ripe (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The concept of the article makes sense 'somewhat', but I can't find sources that could list this as an antipattern or metrics about system performance related to the use of a database as an IPC. It could be a good topic for a primary research or paper. --Luis Augusto Peña ^(talk) 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, without sources, all it is is WP:OR. Burzmali (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like original research, an if it was better known under a different name, nobody seems to know which.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CurrEx

delete - entirely N/N currency exchange site, per wp:corp & wp:web. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertisement. The article lists only the date of foundation, the various electronic currencies that it accepts, and the company's website. Nothing is said to establish its notability. RJC ^Talk 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't even assert notability, can't find any sources prove notability either -- pb30<talk> 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - the record label being notable does not make every album it releases notable. Notability is not inherited. Neıl ☎ 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hittin' Like a Bullet

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hittin' Like a Bullet

Delete entirely N/N album by a (possibly notable - investigate later) rap artist. Album did not chart, no singles off the album charted. album does not deserve article. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the artist in question doesn't seem to be notable, so his album would be non-notable as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm quite sure he is actually notable, he has released 8 albumbs on major labels, has charted so i'm pretty sure he would be notable! Unless i'm gettting mixed up and there is more than one rapper named "Pistol". -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything on Billboard about a rapper named Pistol charting, and ~~I can only find two albums for him.~~ although All Music Guide lists more than eight albums, most of them seem to be on non-notable labels. A search for "pistol nashville rap" turned up no reliable sources either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong, not charted.. but I feel he would probably still meet WP:MUSIC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang On, I think I could help this article and create the Pistol article. He may have not had a charting album but there are plenty of other artists that don't deserve articles on this site. And he was signed to Ruthless Records which at that point was the hottest hip-hop label in America.Same As It Ever Was (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article clearly states non-notability, although it's possible that the artist might deserve an article, the album does not. Jeodesic (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruthless Records released only a few dozen albums, all by very notable artists, so this album is notable just because of the label. Also, Eazy-E was the executive producer. I subscribe to the idea that an album may be MORE notable than its respective artist, which I think is true in this case. Ruthless, and the recording of this album is hip hop history, something that will be researched over the next century, so this is a good place to store that knowledge. Cosprings (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An album does indeed not have to be from a notable artist to be notable itself, but neither does it inherit notability form its label. What we're missing here are reliable sources or anything else that would clearly demonstrates notability, so delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NN's subsection, WP:BIO#Athletes is the guideline here and no evidence O'Shea passes it at this time. Neıl ☎ 14:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michéal O'Shea

Doesnt pass WP:NN for GAA players , that being a senior intercounty player . Gnevin (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this does meet the criteria for a top level GAA player. Michéal is a key player with a top side. I have deleted the points that don't have backing, but the rest is true and noteworthy. thanks ~~Brianhanamy~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhanamy (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTo be a WP:Notable player ,they must of played at senior inter county level .This is a reasonable way to define Notability other wise every club player could be added Gnevin (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal is an upcoming star in the GAA world... very noteworthy imo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.233.104 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Şule Kut

Delete nn bio; an associate professor, no sources, so nn we don't know when or where he was born, what he has done other than his apparently current job; no significant coverage in RSes, fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Carlossuarez46. It seems like the article isn't going to be built up any more and it doesn't really say anything about the person.--Revanche (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom. --Crusio (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep apparently nobody bothered to look in Google & follow up the links. I find many of her publications, and a description of her career in a third party source. Turns out she's the chair of her dept, Dean of the Faculty of Economics, and Vice-Rector of Bigle University. (I think that's equivalent to University President in the US, and would make her almost automatically notable) . It's not a good idea to think that any article can't be developed further unless you have tried, made a thorough search, failed, and can document it. It is frequent to see careless out of date bio articles on academics. I'll add publications & refs. when I have a chance, but Vice-rector should be sufficient. . DGG (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Looks notable. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Should have Googled myself earlier, DGG is absolutely right about verifying before you vote. --Crusio (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle timeline

Long original research timeline of the fictional Bionicle universe. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should be kept. I've seen these toys in the toy stores and I imagine it might mean something to someone. It would probably be more useful in the main article, but seems too long for that. --Revanche (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL. Mr.Z-man 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with the above poster. It needs major cleanup, however. ― LADY GALAXY 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to the main aticle.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOR, and WP:FICTION, keeps has no policy based reasoning. Secret ^account 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly unsourced OR, no third party sources or evidence of real world importance. Mr.Z-man 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Taubenfeld

Non-notable musician who's only claim to fame is as a guitarist for Avril Lavigne and as notability isn't inherited and he doesn't appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC in his own right, hence the AfD. Google links appear to be either blogs, lyrics sites or publicity/press releases etc WebHamster00:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept. From my own POV, the article seems like a okay written one, with a lot of notable information and, with a little work from the prodded authors, could be improved. --Revanche (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL, article makes a lot of claims of future success that may or may not pan out. Burzmali (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has co-written charting songs, which makes it notable per WP:MUSIC. (I also think there should be enough published material about him, but have no direct proof of that right now.) -- Pepve (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He would seem to qualify as a songwriter. Many "solo" acts have bands with consistent membership, individuals who may contribute significantly to the music in many ways, even if the music is released under only one person's name. They post a challenge for how to interpret the WP:MUSIC criteria. I suggest a useful comparison here is the case of Del Palmer, Kate Bush's bass player; see[56], [57]. Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Youth in Victoria (PYV)

Delete NN youth organisation Mayalld (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable youth fellowship, by the looks of it. Very scant Google coverage, and nothing linking to their website according to Google either. Lankiveil (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree. The article starts of okay, but quickly begins to seem like something from a phamplet. If it were cut down, would it be worth saving? --Revanche (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scott.wheeler (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 14:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DansGuardian

AfDs for this article:

Delete non-notable software; was nominated a couple of years ago and it may have gone defunct since- again no RSes with significant coverage to meet WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy: what makes it non-notable? Just because it is no longer in use doesn't seem like a good reason to delete it. Maybe make a statement about its functionality being replaced by more recent software? --Revanche (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Looks like it has reasonably wide spread usage, but nothing seems to really make it notable. No coverage in the media, and most of the ghits are how-to guides and requests for assistance. Burzmali (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- This is a major OSS project used by hundreds of institutions. How is it not notable? Jgw (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "May have gone defunct?" What the heck? Web page says the package was last updated in December (even the article itself claims the package was updated in August!!!). AFAIK it's still maintained and still in wide use, included in Linux distributions. Has been covered in media (e.g. Linux Journal, probably others; there's other article mentions in news page). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Whether the software is defunct or not doesn't matter, however the article doesn't seem to pass WP:N. After some searching it clearly has a strong Internet presence, but couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. -- pb30<talk> 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted Fabrictramp (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was definitely eligible for the speedy deletion that was requested before the AfD, so I have speedily deleted it. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myworldness

Article created by site owner, does not meet notability guideline Lady Serena (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone really wants to create a redirect as Revolving Bugbear suggests, go for it. Neıl ☎ 13:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malbot

Original research and unsourced. There are 2200 pages on Google that even reference this short word. Some of them are simply of people with the nickname "Malbot", and others are pages that mirror this article. This article has been out since 2006 and yet it is obvious that this word either is not widespread or worse, does not exist. Althena (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially a dictionary definition for a word that does not appear to have gained traction. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but I may agree. I think it is informative on its on, but it seems to be written as a definition, rather than an article. --Revanche (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per lack of coverage in any media (news and blogs) and per WP:NEO. Burzmali (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet bot. No reason to fork this from the main article. - Revolving Bugbear 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But is there a reason for it to exist at all, even as a redirect? It really seems to be a made-up word. Althena (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 13:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Cataclysm

Original research plot summary about an event in the fictional Bionicle universe. No real world context and the only sources are primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every last facet if this article is original research and no source would rescue its lack of real-world notability.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to understand the reasoning for some deletions, but both of these Bionicle articles seem to be well-written and formatted. Can they be saved with the help of the originator? (I just don't know how to address the notability problem, but aren't there lots of fanboy articles -I'm thinking Star Trek- on Wikipedia? --Revanche (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's not just notability, it's also WP:PLOT, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:WAF among others. Ridernyc (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ridernyc. Tried to come up with more reasons, but was unable to ;-). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations to/from all Karnataka airports

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of destinations to/from all Karnataka airports

This article simply duplicates information found in individual airport articles and is not the norm for the WP airports project in relation to lists. Could also go against WP:TRAVEL. Russavia (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The airport articles are ample for encyclopedic purposes. This level of detail is not supported by WP:AIRPORTS. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I appreciate your concern, but "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples." I believe that the article I have created does this in a very good manner. This is also a great reference to anyone wishing to see where they could fly to or from Karnataka.Indiandefender2 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At any rate, I would think that one could fly to Karnataka from anywhere in the world with scheduled airline service if one is willing to take enough connecting flights. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially when its unreferenced. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with the destination lists in the airport articles. The airport series is well-organized and easily navigated by means of the categories, so there is no need for a list here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 13:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jann Halexander

Nominated for deletion by an anonymous editor who says: Jann Halexander is unknown in France ... the French wikipedia article devoted to this singer is self advertising. Like Sigma, I advise to delete this page. --87.91.95.58 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC). This is a procedural nomination - no opinion is being expressed by me. See also Talk:Jann Halexander for a brief discussion on notability and clean-up issues. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 09:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't see anything here to clearly pass WP:MUSIC, but then there is a bit of a Google presence including some verifiable appearances. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - meets notability by asserting the release of a record. Needs better sources. I did some copy edits. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 00:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this meet WP:MUSIC. The release of a record would probably save it from {{db-band}}, but still doesn't meet the guideline in WP:MUSIC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His albums appear to be self-published, from anything I could tell on the web. You'd like to see albums with major labels (or with respectable independents), tours or awards to ensure notability per WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC). Follow-up comment: On November 3, 2004, he released a four song demo album called Brasillach 1945, with a print run of only eight copies. The article goes on to say that the entire run was sold out. This CD is duly listed in his discography. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Addhoc (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Coxwell Tithe Barn

Notability concerns, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I think this article should be renamed rather than deleted - it's not a 'Tithe' barn, but a 'monastic grange' Great Barn. This is a notable building (Grade I listed and owned by the National Trust) and one of the few 'monastic' buildings to survive Henry VIII and dating from about 1300 - 1310 (dendrochronology) WikiWriter (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OUTCOMES (and WP:LOCAL, possibly) has precedents, this is an historic building, under management of the National Trust. The word tithe appears disputed, so I'd support the rename. Yng varr 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. This is the first example cited under "Tithe barn" in Sue Clifford and Angela King, England in Particular (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2006), ISBN 0340826169, pp. 410-411, with the comments "A favourite building of Mies van der Rohe", "This, the finest of medieval tithe barns ... attempted to create sheltered volume without load-bearing walls", "It is an astonishing survival, with wooden posts and beams so elegantly and carefully framed ... that they have carried the weight and resisted the thrust of the huge stone tile roof for more than seven hundred years". For other reliable sources see Timothy Darvill, Paul Stamper and Jane Timby, England: An Oxford Archaeological Guide to Sites from Earliest Times to AD 1600 (OUP, 2002), ISBN 0192841017, pp. 285-6 (not mentioning tithes, just a non-commital "storage of grain crops"); and F.W.B. Charles, The Great Barn at Bredon (1997), ISBN 1900188279, pp. 14-16. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

[1]